Mumbai Court November 1941 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.
In Re: Balubhai Kallianchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR171
Chagla, J.1. On March 18, 1940, the insolvents were adjudicated insolvents by this Court on the petition of Messrs. Gobindmal Dhajanchand, creditors.2. It seems that Kallianchand and Sobhagchand were two brothers, and in or about the year 1880 started business as commission agents and jewellery merchants in the name of Kallianchand Sobhagchand. In 1900 Sobhagchand died, and Kallianchand carried on the business. Kallianchand had two sons, Amarchand and Balubhai. Kallianchand died in 1915 and his sons carried on the business. Amarchand died in 1932 leaving behind him three sons, Uttamchand, Shantichand and Gulabchand. The firm of Kallianchand Sobhagchand had dealings with Gordhandas Ranchoddas Bhagat and deposited, to secure the indebtedness of the firm, the title-deeds of the properties situate at Surat, Poona and Bovril by way of equitable mortgage. The Official Assignee has admitted the claim of Gordhandas Ranchoddas Bhagat against the firm.3. The insolvents are Balubhai, the son of K...
Ningappa Narsingappa Havaldar Vs. Chandra Jakkappa Havaldar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR367
Divatia, J.1. This is a revisional application by the appellants in an appeal which was pending before the First Class Subordinate Judge with Appellate Powers at Belgaum. The appeal was filed by the present applicants and it was fixed for hearing on September 7, 1940. Before that date a notice was served on the appellants on August 2, for depositing the costs for the preparation of the paper-book of the appeal. According to the circular issued by the High Court those costs were to be deposited within a month from the date of the service of the notice, and the last date of the deposit was, therefore, September 2. As the amount was not paid on the due date, the appeal was dismissed on the next day, i.e. September 3, for want of prosecution. There is nothing to show whether the parties or their pleaders were present in the Court on: that date. Thereafter, on October 1, the appellants applied to the Court to restore the appeal on the ground that the costs for the paper-book were not deposi...
Suganchand Bhikamchand Vs. Mangibai Gulabchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR358
John Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, whose suit for partition of his half share in joint family properties has been dismissed by the trial Court, claims to be the adopted son of one Bhikamchand, brother of Gulabchand defendant No. 1, the adoption having been made by Bhikamchand's widow Jadavbai defendant No, 2 on May 8, 1936.2. Gulabchand and Bhikamchand were members of a joint family. Bhikamchand died in April, 1926. In 1927 Jadavbai wanted to adopt a certain boy, not the plaintiff, but defendant No. 1 objected and the idea was dropped. In July, 1929, there was an agreement between defendant No. 1 and Jadav-bai making provision for her residence and maintenance. On April 30, 1936, Jadavbai sent a formal notice to defendant No. 1 announcing her intention of making an adoption. Defendant No. 1 replied to the notice on May 5, 1936, saying that Jadavbai had no right to make an adoption and that he was strongly opposed to it. However, the adoption took place. The fact of adoption...
The Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad Vs. the Government of the Provin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR354
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is i a second appeal against a decision of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad, and it raises Ian important question under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.2. The property in suit was formerly a public well, and prior to 1921 it was entered in the Record of Rights as Government property. In the year 1921 the ownership was transferred into the name of the Ahmedabad Municipality. In the year 1934 Government discovered that the well had been filled up, and in 1935 there was a survey enquiry in which it was held that the property belonged to Government. The Municipality accordingly filed this suit asking for a declaration that the property in question, which is City Survey No. 2438 of Jamalpur Ward No, 1 of Ahmedabad city, vests in and! belongs to the borough municipality. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the decision was upheld in appeal by the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad.3. Section 63 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, provides in Sub-secti...
In Re: the Cine Industries and Recording Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR387
Chagla, J.1. This is a petition to wind up the Cine Industries and Recording Company, Limited. The company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act: (VII of 1913) on April 12, 1937. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued capital of the company is 2,500 shares of Rs. 100 each. The subscribed and paid up capital of the company is Rs. 1,69,600, consisting of 1696 fully paid up shares of Rs. 100 each.2. The principal objects for which the company was established were to produce and get produced talking or television films of a high standard, to cany on the business of cinematograph trade and industry, to carry on and undertake the business of manufacturers, producers, exhibitors and importers of cinema films, photo plates, talkie or silent pictures, etc.3. The last balance sheet of the company was filed on December 5, 1940, and the last annual general meeting of the company was held on October 28, 1940. The petitioner...
Ratanji Virpal and Co. Vs. Dhirajlal Manilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR175
Chagla, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award made by Maneklal Ujamsey and Sakalchand G. Shah on October 13, 1941.2. Mr. Engineer who appears for the respondents takes a preliminary objection to the petition that as the award made by these arbitrators has not been filed, the petition does not lie. Mr. Daphtary for the petitioners argues that before the passing of Act X of 1940 it was competent to a party to a submission to take proceedings in Court to have the award set aside before the award was actually filed under the Indian Arbitration Act, and he contends that that right which a party had has not been taken away by the consolidating Act of 1940. He further relies on the language of Section 31, Sub-section (3), which provides that all applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been, or may be, filed, and to no other Court. Mr. Daphtary's contention is that he is ma...
Amritlal Mohanlal Jhaveri Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR137
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to refund a sum of Rs. 1,025 paid by the applicant as Court-fee on certain cross-objections which were filed in January, 1941, in First Appeal No. 251 of 1940. The cross-objections were out of time and accordingly the Registrar refused to register them under Rule 9 of the Appellate Side Rules. Thereupon the applicant made an application to the Court under Rule 71 to excuse the delay and that application was rejected by the Court. The applicant, therefore, applied under Rule 143 for the refund of the Court-fee. That rule provides that whenever registration of any appeal, memorandum of cross-objections or application is for any reason refused by the Registrar, a refund certificate shall on application be granted to the party or his advocate entitling him to receive back the value of the Court-fee stamps cancelled in the office in respect of such appeal, memorandum of cross-objections or application and the copies therewith filed. The appl...
Ghunilal Kevalram Marwadi Vs. Ramqhandra Yesaji Gursal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR278
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Judge of Ahmednagar holding that an appeal to his Court did not lie. The question turns on the effect of Section 10 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiff in his plaint claims a declaration that the suit sale-deed is in the nature of a mortgage and that accounts should be taken on that basis. The learned trial Judge declared that the transaction evidenced by the sale-deed in suit was only a mortgage and found the amount due to the defendant from the paintiffs on the basis of the mortgage. Section 10 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act provides that no appeal shall lie from any decree or order passed in any suit to which Chapter II applies, so that if the suit comes under Chapter II, no appeal lies. In my view the suit comes under Section 3(a) which is contained in Chapter II and provides that the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to suits for an account instituted...
The Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Bai Baiba Kandhabhai Hari ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR518
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad, made upon an application by Government, under the provisions of O. XXXIII, Rule 12, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Government prayed for the revision of the directions in regard to the payment of court-fees contained in a decree passed on August 23, 1987, in an action by a Hindu widow filed in forma pauperis for maintenance against the coparceners of her deceased husband. The claim by the widow was for arrears of maintenance in the amount of Rs.1,000, for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 a year and for a certain share in the field produce and for charges of repairs of a family house in which she resided. The claim in regard to the last two items was valued at Rs. 270. It may be noted that, for the calculation of court-fees, the capitalized value of the claim to future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per year was about Rs. 2,240. The total claim computed in money ...
Savlaram Sadoba Navle Vs. Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Chinke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR246
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision which, in substance, asks us to make an order for possession under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) of that section provides :Whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immoveable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction, order the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the same. 2. Sub-section (3) provides that an order under that section may be made by any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision.3. Now, in this case on November 30, 1940, an accused person was convicted of criminal house-trespass under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. From the learned Magistrate's judgment the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »