Mumbai Court August 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ambabai Bhaichand Gujar Vs. Keshav Bandochand Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom233; (1941)43BOMLR114
Divatia, J. 1. The decree against which this appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 was passed in favour of the plaintiff who sued to recover possession of certain property on the ground that he was a preferential heir of one Rajaram. The plaintiff was the natural brother of Rajaram, but the latter was adopted by his maternal grandfather and he therefore became his sister's son, Rajaram died on June 10, 1932, without leaving a widow or any issue, and the dispute arose about his property which was claimed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1, who is the sister of Rajaram's adoptive father. The contest is thus between sister's son and father's sister. It is common ground between the parties, who are Jains, that their ancestors migrated from Gujarat and settled in the Belgaum District. It was agreed during the hearing of the suit that Rajaram's adoption was proved and Was valid, as a daughter's son could be adopted among the Jains. The plaintiff claimed to be the preferen, tial heir u...
In Re: the Patiala State Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom93; (1941)43BOMLR84
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the substantial question, which arises, is whether the Patiala State Bank is liable to be assessed to income-tax under the Government Trading Taxation Act (III of 1926).2. The facts found are that the Patiala State Bank is owned wholly by the Patiala State and carries on banking business. It has no separate entity, and I take it that when the Commissioner says 'it is owned wholly by the Patiala State,' he means that it is owned and controlled by the Ruler of the Patiala State, that is the Maharaja, who constitutes the government of the State. The questions raised relate to the assessments for two years, 1935-36 and 1936-37, and in respect of each of those years I gather that a notice was sent to the principal officer of the Patiala State Bank, and he made a return on which the assessments are based. We are not, therefore, concerned to consider w...
Jamburao Satappa Kochari Vs. Annappa Ramchandrappa Kabbur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom23; (1940)42BOMLR1066
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Assistant Judge of Belgaum. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note dated August 13, 1935, and made by the father of the defendants. The father died before the filing of this suit, and the defendants were sued on the promissory note as the legal representatives of the father. The plaint alleges that the executant of the promissory note, namely, the father, is dead and the defendants are his sons, and the estate of the deceased is in their possession. These allegations were not denied in the written statement. There is no allegation in the plaint that the father and the sons were joint; and I think the learned Assistant Judge was right in saying that this is a suit on a promissory note, and is not a suit which is based on the liability of the sons of a Hindu father to pay his debts under the doctrine of pious obligation. The learned Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the sons of a Hindu are not his legal representatives with...
Emperor Vs. Anandya Sambhya Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom416; (1940)42BOMLR909
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate, Kolaba. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kolaba was enquiring into a case under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Police Sub-Inspector, who had been investigating the antecedents of the person against whom an order was sought under Section 110 and who had given evidence, then asked per mission to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution. The learned sub- Divisional Magistrate refused permission on the ground that the case fell within Sub-section (4) of Section 495 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 495 provides in Sub-section (1) that any Magistrate inquiring into or trying any case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than an officer of police below the prescribed rank. Then it is provided that no person, other than those named in the Section, which include an officer generally or specially empowered by the Local Government in this behalf, shall be entitle...
Babubhai Vamalchand Kachra Vs. Hiralal Vamalchand Kachra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom69; (1940)42BOMLR1093
Broomfield, J.1. This is a reference 'by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat purporting to be under Order XLVI, Rule 1.2. The facts are as follows. A suit for a declaration and injunction valued at Rs.. 205 was instituted in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court. According to the practice by which the work of that Court is distributed the case was allocated to the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge for disposal. Subsequently by order of the District Judge (it is not quite clear whether this was an administrative order or an order under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code) the case was sent to the Court of the Extra Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge, who is one of the four Subordinate Judges attached to the First Class Court. While the case was pending in the Court of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge, an application was made to amend the plaint by including additional properties in the list of suit properties and asking for partition. This application for amendm...
Jessie Grant Khambatta Vs. Mancherji C. Khambatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR945
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for an order of attachment against the husband in a divorce suit. I made an order on July 12 last that the husband should pay Rs. 6,400 within four days, that amount being the arrears of alimony pendente lite which I had directed the husband to pay at the rate of Rs. 400 a month from April 1, 1939, and in respect of which he had not paid a single rupee. I further directed him to pay alimony at the rate of Rs. 200 a month to his wife and to pay the costs. He has paid nothing either in respect of the arrears of alimony or the current alimony or the costs, and an application is made that he should be arrested and sent to prison.2. The first point taken by Mr. Chagla on behalf of the wife is that the proviso to Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was added by recent amendment, does not apply to an order for alimony. The order for alimony was made under Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act, and by Section 55 of the Indian Divorce A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›