Mumbai Court March 1940 Judgments
Morarjee Gokuldas and Co. Vs. the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom37; (1940)42BOMLR948
Blackwell, J.1. This is an application to set aside an insolvency notice. Two preliminary objections were taken to the hearing of the matter. The first objection was that the affidavit in opposition to the insolvency notice must be filed within seven days of the service thereof as provided by Rule 52 B(3) of the Bombay Insolvency Rules and that it had not been so filed. The insolvency notice was, as appears from the affidavit of service, served on February 29, 1940. The affidavit was filed on March 8, 1940. As, however, March 7 was a public holiday the filing of the affidavit on the next day was in order, and the affidavit was in time. This objection fails.2. The next objection was that the affidavit was not filed by the judgment-debtor as required by the Rules. The affidavit was sworn by one Nandkishore Ramdhandas, the son and constituted attorney of Ramdhandas Jhajharia, a partner in the firm of Morarjee Goculdas & Co. Mr. Munshi contended that Ramdhandaa Jhajharia himself ought to h...
Tag this Judgment!Anandaji Sawaji and Co. Vs. Ahmedbhoy Abedinbhoy Peerbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom287; (1940)42BOMLR580
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a motion asking us to direct the Commissioner for Taking Accounts to take an account of the rents and profits of the mortgaged premises realised by the appellants as mortgagees in possession and of the disbursements made by them on the footing of wilful default. The order for taking accounts was made by this Court on October 9, 1939, and it directs merely that in the absence of agreement the matter be referred to the Commissioner to take an account and determine the amount due under the mortgage in suit.2. The suit was not an ordinary mortgage suit. What happened was that the mortgagees sold the mortgaged property, and after having done so, Government paid into Court under the Land Acquisition Act a sum of Rs. 9,000 odd as damages for denotification of the property, and the question before the Court was whether the mortgagor or mortgagees were entitled to that money. This Court held that the money was subject to the mortgage, but as the mortgagor alle...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwant Genuji Girme Vs. Gangabisan Ramgopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom369; (1940)42BOMLR750
Wassoodew, J.1. These are two cross-appeals from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar in a suit to recover damages for breach of contract in the amount of Rs. 9,422-15-3 from the defendants. The alleged contract related to the collection of toll on public roads in the Ahmednagar District, one on the Ahmednagar-Poona road and the other Ahmednagar-Manmad road. The right to collect that toll for one year commencing from April 1, 1933, was publicly auctioned by the Collector on March 2, 1933. It is the plaintiff's case that on, the eve of that auction he with the defendants entered into a partnership to acquire the lease of the tolls from Government and to collect the toll for the benefit of the partnership. It was also agreed according to him that the partners should not bid against one another. It is said that at the auction the lease of thesetwo tolls was secured for the partnership, the bidders being the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for the Nagar-Poona road, and...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakuverbai Amritlal Shah Vs. Kasumbabai Sakerchand Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom382; (1940)42BOMLR827
Kania, J.1. One Sakerchand Gulabchand Parekh died on December 11, 1938, having duly made and published his will in the Gujarati language and character dated February 25, 1927. Probate of that will has been granted to the executors and executrix. Plaintiff is the daughter of the testator, defendant No. 1 is his widow, while defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the executrix and executors of his said will. The Advocate General is defendant No. 4.2. On the pleadings several points arise for determination, but in the first instance I am asked to construe the will in so far as it relates to Clause 11.3. Clause 11 runs thus: As regards whatever residue of my estate that may be left after setting apart the aforesaid sums and after giving away the legacies my (executrix and) executors shall utilise all that residue of the estate for the purpose of education or for rendering help to the poor or for any other purpose of publiq service deemed proper by therrt at my native place Chotila in Kathiawar in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. V. Govindan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR707
Porter, J.1. In this appeal the respondent, who was the plaintiff in the action, claims damages for wrongful dismissal. The trial Judge on April 6, 1936, passed a decree in favour of the appellants (defendants), but on September 21, 1936, this decree was reversed by the High Court sitting as a Court of Appeal.2. The respondent was employed by the appellants under a contract in writing dated April 13, 1931, in the following terms:-'Date, Bombay, the 13th April, 1931.To Messrs. Jamnabhai Mansukbhai. Agents, The Gujarat Ginning and Mfg. Co., Ltd., Ahmedabad. Dear Sirs, This is to inform you that I have agreed to serve your company as the Dyeing, Bleaching and Finishing Master in full charge of the company's Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing Department from the date of my joining the appointment and to be the sole head of the department and I shall work as such under your directions. 1. This agreement is for a period of three years and to be determined there-. after by either of us. 2. My sa...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State Vs. Mask and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR767
Thankerton, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is as to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain the suit. The appeal is taken from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated February 2, 1938, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore, dated March 30, 1937 (which had dismissed the respondents' suit on the ground of want of jurisdiction), and directed the Subordinate Judge to restore the suit to the file and to dispose of it on the merits.2. The respondents are a firm of merchants, having their head office at Pan-ruti in the Province of Madras, and, in the course of their business, they import betel-nuts from Java into British India. The facts in the present suit, which was filed by the respondents on April 10, 1934, are not materially in dispute. The suit relates to two consignments of betel-nuts, imported by the respondents in December, 1932, from Java to Pondicherry by sea, and thereafter by rail to Panruti...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Electric Supply and Tramways Company Limited, in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR432(Bom)
ORDERUpon the Reference of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan dated the seventh day of October one thousand nine hundred and thirty seven arising out of the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B Division, Bombay, in the above matter dated the first day of February one thousand nine hundred and thirty seven in appeal on the grounds mentioned in the petition herein dated the second day of April one thousand nine hundred and thirty seven being this day called on for hearing the said Commissioner and the above named Assessee, the Bombay Electric Supply and Tramways Company Limited appearing respectively by Advocates and upon reading the said Reference and the Order passed on the first day of February one thousand nine hundred and thirty seven by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, B Division, Bombay, and upon the said parties by their respective Advocate hereby consenting to the following Order This Court by and with such con...
Tag this Judgment!Cooverji Varjang Vs. Cooverbai Nagsey Champsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom330; (1940)42BOMLR564
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia made on a chamber summons taken out by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 50(2).2. The material facts are that in the year 1930 a suit was filed by Messrs. Chenabhai Virji & Co. against Nagsey Champsey, and in due course there was a reference to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. The Commissioner made his report to which the defendant took out exceptions. On November 11, 1937, the exceptions were allowed by the learned Judge and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay certain costs to the defendant. A question then arose as to who were liable to pay those costs, i.e. who were covered by the firm-name of Chenabhai Virji & Co. On July 15, 1938, the legal representative of the defendant, who had died in the meantime, took out this chamber summons under Order XXI, Rule 50(2), of the Civil Procedure Code, for leave to execute the order of November 11, 1937, against the appellants as partners in the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Abdul Latiff Vs. Khalaf Abdulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom293; (1940)42BOMLR578
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B.J. Wadia. The suit was a short cause, in which the defendants did not appear. The matter came before the learned Judge in Chambers, and he made an order for payment of the amount claimed by the plaintiff, which was Rs. 15,000 odd, and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 400 for costs. It is against the order for costs that the plaintiff appeals, and contends that a larger sum should have been allowed for costs. Under item 56 of the Table of Fees costs for ex parte short causes, unless otherwise ordered, are a lump sum of Rs. 250. The words ' unless otherwise ordered' confer a complete discretion upon the Judge, and it is not desirable that this Court should seek to limit the grounds on which that discretion should be exercised. At the same time we think it right to say that the figure of Rs. 250 was one which the Judges considered was sufficient to include in a normal case reasonable remuneration for ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra B. Loyalka Vs. Shapurji N. Bhownagree
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom315; (1940)42BOMLR550
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Somjee. The plaintiff is a sub-broker and was employed as such by the defendant, who is a broker, on the terms of a contract, exhibit A, which was subsequently modified by exhibit B, to which documents I will refer in a moment. The plaintiff sues for an account of the commission payable to him under the agreements. The only substantial point, which appears to have been argued before the learned Judge and which has been argued on this appeal, is as to the liability of the plaintiff in respect of default made by the clients introduced by him. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff had been discharged from liability under circumstances which I will narrate in a moment, and the real question is whether that order is right. The learned Judge referred the matter to the Commissioner for taking accounts, and no doubt the matter will have to be referred to the Commissioner, and the only question before us is as to th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »