Mumbai Court December 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.
Kesarmal Indajishet Vs. Narayan Vidyadhar Vankde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR426
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal which has been referred to a bench because it raises the question how far a recent decision of the Privy Council on Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act has affected Indian decisions on Section 19 of the Act.2. The facts are not in dispute. There was a loan made by the plaintiff to the defendant on April 2, 1933, of Rs. 1,120, which was entered in the khata of the plaintiff, and the entry was signed by the defendant. A suit on the khata was filed on December 14, 1937, more than three years after the date of the loan, and therefore prima facie it would be barred under Article 73 of the Indian Limitation Act. But on April 10, 1935, that is to say within three years of the loan and of the suit, an entry was made in the khata! in these terms : 'Credited Rs. 30-10-0 on December 15, 1934, as the price of paddy': This was signed by the defendant. Then the entry continues 'This has been credited this day the date April 10, 1935, towards the above amo...
Govind Narayan Prabhu Vs. Bhiku Gopal Mhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR409
Broomfield, J.1. The appellants were some of the defendants in a suit brought by the respondents on a simple mortgage for Rs. 2,192 dated July 19, 1926. The main defence to the suit was that the mortgage was void.2. In order to understand how the point arose it is necessary to note the facts leading up to the mortgage suit and also certain statutory provisions. In a suit brought by the plaintiffs' predecessor against defendant No. 1 and the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on a promissory note, Suit No. 200 of 1926, a decree was passed on March 12, 1926, for Rs. 1,610 and costs amounting to Rs. 228 and interest at the rate of six per cent, from the date of the suit, November 7, 1925. Execution was taken out, and in March, 1926, a darkhast was presented claiming Rs. 1,877 as due under the decree. On July 19, 1926, an application, exhibit 135, was put in by both parties asking the Court's permission for the execution of a mortgage of property belonging to the defendants in satisfaction o...
Emperor Vs. Salamat Marzban Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR239
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against their conviction under Section 43(1)(i) of the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, the offence charged being that they sold without a licence a bottle of beer and, ai bottle of rum. At the trial the bogus customer went back! on his original statement, but I agree with the learned Magistrate that there was quite enough evidence to show that on the day in question the appellants did sell a bottle of beer and a bottle of rum, and, in my opinion, therefore, their conviction is justified.2. But the learned Magistrate, in convicting the accused, passed an order for the confiscation of exhibits E and G, exhibit E being liquor which was found, on the police raiding the premises, in the kitchen adjacent to the place where the sale took place, and exhibit G being a very considerable amount of liquor found in a godown at the back of the accused's premises, and the principal question in this appeal is whether those exhibits are liable to confisca...
The Commissioner of Income-tax and Orissa Vs. Sir Kameshwar Singh of D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR778
Thankerton, J.1. In connection with the assessment of the profits and gains of his business as a money-lender for the year 1931-1932, the respondent claimed the deduction of Rs. 2,07,018 expended in the year of account, as an allowance admissible under Section 10(2) (ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The respondent's claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, and the Commissioner of Income-tax, the last of whom, at the request of the respondent, made a reference under Section 66(2) of the Act to the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which decided the reference in favour of the respondent by a judgment dated October 17, 1939, against which the present appeal has been taken by the appellant.2. The relevant provisions of Section 10 of the Act are as follows:--10 (i) The tax shall be payable by an assessee under head 'Business' in respect of the profits or gains of any business carried on by him.(2) Such profits or gains shall be computed...
Dattatraya Maruti Shanbhag Vs. Laxman Jattappa Shanbhag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Bom260
Broomfield, J.1. These are cross-appeals arising out of a suit brought by the appellant in the main appeal, First Appeal No. 134 of 1939. In his suit he claimed a share in the properties of the family of the parties on the basis of an alleged partition in 1929, and in the alternative he claimed a fresh partition, alleging that he was entitled to one-eighth share in certain properties alleged to be joint family properties (Sch. B) and in certain outstandings (Schedule C) and to a half share in other properties alleged to be the self-acquired properties of his branch of the family (Sch. E). The suit was a very complicated one and numerous issues were raised, but almost all the points were disposed of by ad-missions of the parties made by purshis. The only points surviving are (1) what share is plaintiff entitled to in the joint family and self-acquired properties respectively; (2) what amount of maintenance should be awarded to defendant 11, the widow of plaintiff's deceased brother. The...
Shantaram Shankar Chobhe Vs. Chintamanrao Bhalchandra Patwardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR522
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff in this action is the Chief of Kurundwad State, and he is suing as a minor. The cause of action for the suit admittedly arose in June, 1926, at which date the defendant owed money to the plaintiff's father. On September 10, 1927, the plaintiff's father died, and his right of suit against the defendant descended upon his son. On September 30, 1927, a letter was written by the defendant to the plaintiff's guardian (maternal uncle) which in my view cannot be regarded in any light other than that of an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. In 1935 the plaintiff brought the present suit. Prima facie it is barred by limitation and the trial Court has dismissed it on that ground. But the lower appellate Court has accepted the plaintiff's contention that Section 6 read with Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act has the effect of extending the period of limitation (which ordinarily would have been up to three yea...
Emperor Vs. Mahadeo Tatya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR216
Beaumont, C.J.1. This case arises on a certificate given by the Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. There were two accused. Accused No. 1 was charged with rape, and accused No. 2 was charged with abetment of rape and also with cheating.2. The general ground-work of the prosecution story is not in dispute. The complainant Baloobai is a girl of about fifteen years of age, married, and accustomed to sexual intercourse with her husband for three months before the offence. On July 31, 1940, she was selling ghee near the sea-shore at Mahalaxmi. Accused No. 1, who was a police constable, was on fixed point duty at the junction of Pedder Road and Warden Road ; and, according to him, his sister with whom he lived in Kamatipura was returning to Bombay the next day from her native place, and he wanted to buy some ghee, so he asked Baloobai the price of her ghee, and it was arranged that she should sell him some ghee at the rate of twelve annas, and he asked her to take the ghe...
Emperor Vs. Ali Mahomed Adamalli (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR249
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is the hearing of a notice issued by this Court to Mr. Ali Mahomed Adamalli to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, for his failure to comply with an order made by the acting Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court on September 4, 1939. That order was made under Section 6A of the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1935, and the order directed the respondent to furnish within thirty days from the date of the order a statement of particulars under Section 3 (in the form in Schedule D) and a statement of accounts under Section 5 (in the form in Schedules A and B) of the Mussalman Wakf Act in respect of the wakf property at Falkland Road, C. S. No. 170 of Tardeo Division, and that in default sanction under Section 10B (1) would be given for the prosecution of the respondent for an offence under Section 10 of the Mussalman Wakf Act. That is an order directing the respondent to do a specific thing within a limited time...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›