Mumbai Court September 1939 Judgments
Subhas Chandra Bose Vs. Gordhandas I. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom76; (1940)42BOMLR89
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B.J. Wadia, and it raises a question as to the validity of the gift of residue contained in the will of the late Vithalbhai J. Patel, The will was made on October 2, 1933, and the testator died on the 22nd of the same month. Probate of his will was subsequently granted by this Court.2. By clause 9 of his will the testator appointed executors and then gave four legacies, and the only relevance of those legacies is that they are all directed to be 'given' to the beneficiaries. Then in sub-cl. (5) the testator disposes of his residue in these terms-The balance of my assets after the disposal of the above mentioned four gifts is to be handed over to Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose (son of Janaki Bose) of 1 Woodburn Park, Calcutta to be spent by the said Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose or by his nominee or nominees according to his instructions for the political uplift of India and preferably for publicity work on behalf of India...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Byramjee Jeejeebhoy, Kt. Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom65; (1940)42BOMLR10
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the owner of certain immoveable properties in the City of Bombay, and he seeks a declaration that Part VI of the Bombay Finance Act of 1932, incorporated therein by the Bombay Finance (Amendment) Act, 1939, is ultra vires of the Bombay Provincial Legislature, and a declaration that the urban immoveable property tax purporting to be levied by Section 22, forming part of the said Part VI of the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, is illegal and invalid. He also asks for further declarations that the notices served on the plaintiff by the Bombay Municipality under Section 202 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act under powers purporting to be conferred by the impugned Act are invalid so far as they relate to the urban immoveable property tax, and other consequential relief. 2. The first point taken by Government is that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit by reason of Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935, P which provide...
Tag this Judgment!Trikambhai Jibhai Vs. Fulabhai Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom155; (1940)42BOMLR180
Divatia, J.1. The point to be decided in this appeal turns upon the construction of a will made by a Hindu by which, after giving some legacies to his relations, he stated that one Trikambhai, who was plaintiff No. 5 in in the trial Court and is the appellant in this Court, ' should manage my property after my lifetime in the same manner in which I am at present managing my property as owner,' and that in doing so he should proceed after taking the joint consent of certain persons named therein. Then follows the material portion of the will that ' after my death the said Trikambhai should make whatever arrangements-whatever dharmada-that are to be made of my properties with the advice of the said four persons.'2. It appears that the appellant got his name entered in the revenue records along with the others as trustees of the property. Subsequently, however, the defendants, who are the agnates of the testator and their purchasers, took possession of the property from the appellant. The...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Dawood Abdul Rehman Hurjuk Vs. Balaji Dharamnak Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom150; (1940)42BOMLR239
Wassoodew, J.1. These are two Letters Patent appeals Nos. 25 and 26 of 1938 from a decision of Mr. Justice Sen. They arise from two suits instituted by the khot of Alsunde in the Kolaba District to recover damages for wrongful felling by the khoti-tenant of certain teak and injayali trees from the land in his possession. The plaintiff-khot claimed the right to the trees on two grounds, first, on the ground that the Dunlop's Proclamation of 1824 conferred the right to the trees growing on the land in the possession of his tenants on the khot, and secondly, on the ground that under the kabulayats of 1863 and 1865 entered into between himself and the Government the ownership of the teak and injayali trees standing on the land outside the reserved forest was expressly conferred on the khot. The learned trial Judge: and the Judge in first appeal upheld that claim of the plaintiff, and passed a decree for damages and costs. In second appeal a contrary view prevailed, and it was held by Mr. J...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Byramji Jeejeebhoy Vs. the Province of Bombay, Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR670(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - The Plaintiff in this suit is the owner of certain immovable properties in the City of Bombay, and he seeks a declaration that part VI of the a Bombay Finance Act of 1932, incorporated their in by the Bombay finance (Amendment) Act, 1939, is ultra vires of the Bombay Provincial Legislature, and a declaration that the Urban Immovable Property Tax purporting to be levied by Section 22, forming part of the said Part VI of the Bombay finance Act, 1932, is illegal and invalid. He also asks for further declaration is the notice served on the plaintiff by the Bombay Municipality under Section 202 of the City of Bomb by Municipal Act under powers purporting to be conferred by the impugned Act are invalid so far as they relate to the Urban Immovable Property Tax, and other consequential relief.The first point taken by Government is that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit by reason of Section 226 of the Government of India Act, which provides that no High Court shal...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Lalita Ratanchand Khimchand Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom97
Beaumont, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other holders of the second preference shares in the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., against the company claiming in effect to establish that the company were not entitled to deduct from dividends on the second preference shares income-tax for the years 1922-23 to 1934-35 inclusive on the ground that in those years the company's income was assessed at nil and the company was exempted from payment of income-tax. The suit was heard by a Bench of three Judges because it was represented to me that large sums were at stake and that an appeal would almost certainly be preferred to the Privy Council, and that the questions at issue depended on documentary evidence, and raised only matters of law. The plaint in para. 21 raises a case of fraudulent misrepresentation but that claim was abandoned at the outset of the case, and thereupon the defendant company abandoned their contention that the suit is not maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Lalita Ratanchand Khimchand Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR337(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This suit is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other holders of the second preference shares in the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., against the company claiming in effect to establish that the company were not entitled to deduct from dividends on the second preference shares income-tax for the years 1922-23 to 1934-35 inclusive on the ground that in those years the companys income was assessed at nil and the company was exempted from payment of income-tax. The suit was heard by a Bench of three Judges because it was represented to me that large sums were at stake and that an appeal would almost certainly be preferred to the Privy Council, and that the questions at issue depended on documentary evidence, and raised only matters of law. The plaint in para 21 raises a case of fraudulent misrepresentation but that claim was abandoned at the outset of the case, and thereupon the defendant company abandoned their contention that the suit is not maintainable...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Nimbaji Shintre Vs. Laxman Supdu Shelke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom161; (1940)42BOMLR175
Lokur, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are mostly undisputed. The plaintiff's father Supdu was a Police Sub-Inspector. Defendant No. 2, who died during the pendency of the suit, was his maternal uncle's son and was serving as a munim in the shop of Jamnadas Mayaram at Ranala. Supdu used to send monies to the deceased, defendant No. 2, for being credited in the shop of Jamnadas Mayaram. He died in 1919 and thereafter defendant No. 2 withdrew Rs. 5,000 from Supdu's khata in Jamnadas's shop and lent it to defendant No. 1 on a mortgage bond in his own favour, dated July 31, 1925. The plaintiffs protested against this and after some correspondence between defendant No. 2 and plaintiff No. 2, defendant No. 2 passed a promissory note for Rs. 5,000 and future interest at nine per cent, per annum in favour of plaintiff No. 2 on April 28, 1928 (exhibit 98). The promissory note was renewed in 1931 and again in 1934 (exhibits 99 and 100). The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Zujya Pascol Damel Vs. Manmohandas Lallubhai Pratap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom164; (1940)42BOMLR248
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Thana in a suit to recover a debt due on a promissory note. The -only question argued is whether Hindu coparceners governed by the Mitakshara law, carrying on a joint family business, can institute in their individual names a suit to recover a debt on a promissory note obtained in the name of the family firm. The material facts can be shortly stated.2. The plaintiffs were members of an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, and they carried on a family business in the name of Kashidas Ambaidas. In the ordinary course of that business the defendant, who was a debtor of their firm, executed the promisssory note in suit on August 29, 1931, in favour of the firm. The relevant portions of that promissory note are these :-The balance due on 29th of August 1931 is in figures Rs. 2,351. In consideration; thereof I the signatory Pascal Darnel pass this promissory noteto the shop of Sha Kashidas Amb...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyangouda Basangouda Ayyangoudar Vs. Gadigeppagouda Huchangouda Ayyan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom200; (1940)42BOMLR256
Wassoodew, J.1. The question raised by this appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar relates principally to the validity of the adoption of the plaintiff and also his right as an adopted son to claim a share in certain properties acquired by a sole surviving coparcener in the adoptive father's family prior to his adoption. The relevant facts for the purpose of this appeal can be shortly stated.2. One Basangouda and his two sons Huchangouda and Ayyangouda, defendant No. 1 in the case, were members of an undivided Hindu family.Basangouda's two sons survived him, and the elder Huchangouda died first in 1910 leaving a widow Dyamavva. The sole surviving coparcener Ayyangouda was in possession of the entire estate and he entered into: an agreement in 1915 with Dyamavva, the widow of his deceased brother, in regard to her maintenance. Under that agreement, which was incorporated in a registered document on August 26, 1915, certain lands and a house were allowed to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »