Mumbai Court July 1940 Judgments
Damodar Vishnu Juvekar Vs. Shriram Lakshman Juvekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom56; (1940)42BOMLR1086
Broomfield, J.1. The appellants in this case are the trustees under a deed of trust executed by Sagunabai widow of Laxman Damodar Juvekar. The plaintiff was adopted by Sagunabai in 1937 as son to her deceased husband and he has sued to recover the property from the possession of the trustees. Laxman before he died in 1900 made a will the principal provisions of which were as follows. He gave all his moveable property to his wife and also the income of his immoveable properties. But she was restrained from alienating these properties by sale, mortgage or gift. Authority was given to her to adopt a son subject to certain restrictions. A sum of Rs. 100 a year was set apart for beating drums before the family God morning and evening and it was provided that if she did not adopt Sagunabai was to make some permanent arrangement for this and other charitable purposes mentioned by the testator. In case a son was either born to the testator or adopted, then the will provided that the son was to...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Vijpal Vs. Pandurang Keshav Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom413; (1940)42BOMLR902
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, was trying two complaints arising out of the same transaction, one of them being under Section 102 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, for which the punishment is less than six months and, therefore, the case is a summons case, which should be tried normally under Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The other charge is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and that is a warrant case triable under Chapter XXI. The learned Magistrate was trying the two offences together, and it was decided in Rajnarain Koonwar v. Lala Tamoli Rout 1884 I.L.R. 11 Cal. 91 that in such an event it is the warrant procedure which must be followed. That is clearly right; the procedure to be followed must be that laid down for the more serious offence.2. The case had been, adjourned to a particular date, and on that date the complainant was absent, and the learned Magistrate passed an order, ' Complainant abs...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Peoples International Travel Education and Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom25; (1940)42BOMLR1021
Kania, J.1. This is a petition by the Registrar of Companies praying that an order may be made for removing the voluntary liquidator and appointing another liquidator, preferably the Court Liquidator, in his place, or in the alternative that the company may be directed to be wound up under the supervision and by and under the directions of the Court. It is conceded by both parties that the right to make the petition has to be decided according to the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913. It is conceded on behalf of the applicant that the alternative prayer to wind up the company under the supervision of the Court or by the Court cannot be granted as he is not one of the persons named in the Act to maintain an application of that nature. The question therefore resolves itself into determining whether the applicant is a person entitled to make the application to remove the liquidator. The objection being urged as a preliminary objection, I have thought it necessary to deci...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimant Khanderao Shivajirao Gaekwar Vs. D.D. Romer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom48; (1940)42BOMLR1024
Kania, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the purchaser of a block of buildings known as Sethna House and Sethna Cottage on the Carmichael Road for the price of Rs. 8,00,000. The contract was an open contract. It is common ground that the late Mr. R. D. Sethna purchased a large plot of land which included the property in question. From time to time parcels of that larger area were sold to Sir Homi Mehta, Amritlal Amarchand and Khimji Assur Virjee. The rest is sold to the plaintiff in this suit. The plaintiff has purchased two lots. In respect of one the vendors still hold a portion and there is no dispute between the parties in respect of the covenant to produce title-deeds which cover that lot, In respect of the other lot where the vendors do not own any portion of the land covered by the original deed the parties have come to Court to determine whether the defendants are entitled to retain the title-deeds as claimed by them in the correspondence. The purchaser has compl...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnadas Govardhandas Madivale Vs. Ratanbai Gokuldas Laxmandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom41; (1940)42BOMLR1044
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Mr. Justice Wassoodew in Second Appeal No. 157 of 1937. The dispute arose in the insolvency proceedings of one Krishnadas Govardhan-das Madiwale. He was adjudicated insolvent in 1933 and a receiver was appointed of his property. Krishnadas was adopted in another family and his natural brother Gokuldas died in 1915 leaving a widow named Ratanbai. Ratanbai applied in the insolvency proceedings praying that she should be given a first charge over the property of the insolvent in respect of an amount of Rs. 10,000 which, according to her, was in possession of the insolvent as trust property on her behalf. The receiver opposed that application on the ground that the applicant Ratanbai was only an ordinary creditor and not a beneficiary under any trust, and that she was not, therefore, entitled to priority over other creditors. The trust on which Ratanbai relied and of which she herself was the main beneficiary ...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent of Stamps Vs. Tejmal Nihalchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom360; (1940)42BOMLR964
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made to this Court under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, raising a short question. By a conveyance of June 26, 1939, the one-fourth undivided share of the vendors in two immoveable properties was sold to the purchasers for a sum of Rs. 14,000. One of the properties sold was subject to a mortgage debt amounting to Rs. 66,633, and that property was sold subject to the mortgage. The question referred to us is: What stamp should be placed upon the conveyance The purchasers, in the first instance, seem to have contended that it should be stamped only on the consideration of Rs. 14,000, but subsequently they admitted that it should be stamped on Rs. 14,000 plus one-fourth of the mortgage debt. The revenue authorities were of opinion that the stamp should be based on the consideration of Rs. 14,000 plus the whole amount of the mortgage debt, that is to say, on a total consideration of Rs. 80,633, and the question we have to determine is...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotibai Daulatram Marwadi Vs. Mansukhlal Jasraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom1; (1940)42BOMLR1016
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision in execution of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar, and it raises an interesting question under the Indian Registration Act. The suit in which this darkhast arises is an ordinary money suit, and on July 7, 1932, there was a compromise decree. The decree notices that the plaintiff's claim was for Rs. 11,000 odd and interest, and states that the plaintiff's claim is admitted by the defendants, and that it is agreed that this suit and some other suit, of which we have no particulars, were to be settled. The plaintiff was to purchase lands mentioned in Clause 6, and he was also to accept a sum of Rs. 7,500 as the amount due in respect of his claim. Then; in Clause 3 there is a provision that defendant No. 2 was to give possession of the lands referred to in Clause 6 as therein mentioned, and then appears a statement that under Civil Procedure Code, Order XXXIX, Rule 1, certain properties, against which an injunction ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sagarmal Khemraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom397; (1940)42BOMLR904
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Bombay, directing that the two applicants be forwarded to Calcutta through the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to stand their trial before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, upon the charges set out in the warrant.2. It appears that on June 12 last a robbery was committed in Calcutta of forty-four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 each. One of those currency notes, the numbers of which had been taken, was subsequently traced to the two applicants, and the Bombay Police communicated this fact to the Calcutta police. Thereupon non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on June 25, 1940, stating that the two applicants stand charged with the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, of robbery. The warrants are addressed to the ' O/C concerned ' and refer to the t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Parvatibai Vs. Raghunath Lakshman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom60; (1940)42BOMLR1063
Kania, J.1. This is a petition for letters of administration to the estate of the deceased Mahadev Ramji Kalzunker. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased, who died on April 18, 1938, leaving behind him, the petitioner, his widow, a son who is four years old and three unmarried daughters of the ages of sixteen, fourteen and eight respectively. The caveator claims that the property left by the deceased was joint family property and the petitioner is therefore not entitled to the grant. This is the only ground mentioned by him in the affidavit filed in support of the caveat. On behalf of the caveator it is urged that pending his contention no letters of administration should be granted. In support of that In re Dhuramsi Morarji : (1912)14BOMLR1031 is relied upon.2. It is conceded that it is not the province of the Testamentary Judge to determine whether the property covered by the will or for which letters of administration are asked for was the property of the deceased or not or wa...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Narayan Vasudev Phadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR861
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the Resident First Class Magistrate of Kalyan under Section s 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The speech, which lays the foundation for the charges, was delivered by the accused on February 26, 1940, to an audience consisting of the members of the Peasants' Union, Kalyan taluka. The circumstances in which the speech was made, according to1 the statement of the accused, were these. The accused had been for some years a member of the Servants of India Society, and his activities were devoted principally to measures for the amelioration of the distress of agriculturists. He says that in October, 1939, the previous Government of Bombay, generally known as the Congress Government, had passed through the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of Bombay three Acts,- the Bombay Small Holders' Relief Act, the Bombay Tenancy Act and the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act,-the last two o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »