Mumbai Court October 1942 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.
Pr. N. Sm. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR563
Russell, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Madras (in its appellate jurisdiction), which varied an order made by the same Court (in its insolvency jurisdiction), which had reversed an order made by the Official Assignee of Madras. It will be convenient in the first place to state shortly the events which led up to this appeal.2. In 1919 there existed an undivided Hindu family, consisting of the father A.R. Somasundaram and his four sons Arunachalam, Ramanathan, Sundaresan and Lakshmanan, which carried on business in divers places in British India, and at Jaffna and Colombo in Ceylon. In 1919 Ramanathan died and in 1923 the father died. On May 14, 1925, letters of administration w?:re granted by the District Court of Jaffna to Arunachalam and Sundaresan on the footing that their father had died intestate; but subsequently the Secretary of the Court was associated in the administration as official administrator, and was virtually in charge of the administration....
Nargisbai D.B. Acidwala Vs. Jehangir Homusji Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR104
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition between co-owners. The property in dispute consists of portions of two Survey Nos. 110 and 115 at Goregaon near Andheri. The total area is a little more than nine acres, the assessment about Rs. 25. The land forms part of a large estate called the Goregaon Estate, the superior holder or khot of which is Sir Byramji Jijibhoy. The land originally belonged to one Manmohandas and was sold by him in June, 1894, to Dr. Nanji the plaintiff's uncle and the plaintiff. Dr. Nanji sold his moiety to one Soonabai in May, 1895. She died about 1916. Her heir was her daughter Meherbai who was married to Manekji, first cousin of the plaintiff. Meherbai in turn was succeeded by her daughter defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is her husband, So that the plaintiff and the defendants are cousins. The defence to plaintiff' s suit for partition, which was brought in March, 1939, was a denial of the plaintiff's title and also adverse p...
Tarachand Hirachand Porwal Vs. Durappa Tavanappa Patravali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom237; (1943)45BOMLR470
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. In my opinion, the application must succeed.2. The suit was heard, as a small cause suit, and on September 12, 1941, an ex parte decree was passed against the present appellant, who was absent. The summons had apparently been served by substituted service, and although it may have been good service in law, one knows from experience that substituted service is not always effective in practice. However, I will assume that it was served,. On October 10 the applicant returned to Belgaum and then became aware, for the first time as he says, of what had happened, and on October 11 he made an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, but did not make the deposit required under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The October 11 was a Saturday, and the thirty days allowed by Article 164 of t...
Kersaji Dhanjibhai Vs. Barjorji Bhikhaji Vandriwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom345; (1943)45BOMLR725
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat transferring a certain decree for execution to the District Judge of Navsari in the Baroda State.2. The facts, so far as it is necessary to mention them, are these. One Dhanjibhai a Parsi died on November 12, 1901, leaving behind him property both moveable and immoveable. The appellant was the son of his brother and had been taken in adoption by him. On September 4, 1911, one Beramji Mancherji son of Dhanjibhai's sister filed a suit for administration of his estate. An issue was raised in that suit as to the validity of the adoption of the appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, and it was held that though the adoption had taken place, it was not legally valid. For various reasons with which we are not now concerned the suit was not disposed of until December 23, 1935. There were appeals from the decree to this Court which were decided on August 2, 1940. The trial Court's decree was c...
Gopal Parsharam Namjoshi Vs. Damodar Janardan Bhagwat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom353; (1943)45BOMLR707
Sen, J.1. The appellants are the sons of one Parsharam Mahadev Namjoshi, opponent No. 3 in Darkhast Not 452 of 1937 filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Devrukh by one Bhagwat, respondent No. 1, in execution of a decree passed in the latter's favour on June 7, 1927, against opponents Nos. 1 and 2, judgment-debtors, named Vishnu Laxman Joshi and Ramakrishna Laxman Joshi. Bhagwat had been one of the Joshis' creditors and his claim was referred to arbitration, an award made and a decree passed in regular civil suit No. 80 of 1927. The decree directed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 should pay to the plaintiff the principal amount of Rs. 2,178 within five years with interest at six per cent. per annum, that the past interest of Rs. 272 should be paid within a year from the date of the decree, and that if the defendants committed default in payment of this amount of interest in time, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the whole amount payable by the sale of certain immoveable...
Sarubai Balakdas Bairagi Vs. Narayandas Devdas Bairagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom224; (1943)45BOMLR473
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Poona, and it raises a question of Hindu law.2. One Parvatibai, who was the wife of the respondent, died on August 16, 1936, having made a will four days before her death, whereby she left her property to the appellant, who is her niece. The will is not before the Court, but it is not disputed that under the will the appellant is given Parvatibai's property. The property in question consisted of cooking utensils, articles of clothing, money in currency notes and ornaments, and it is admitted that it comes within the description of stridhana other than saudayika. The rule with regard to the powers of a woman over property of that nature is stated in Mulla's Hindu Law, 9th Edition, paragraph 143, in these terms :As regards stridhana other than saudayika, e.g., gifts from strangers, property acquired by mechanical arts, etc., the rule is that she has no power to dispose of it during coverture with...
Mittasaheb Hirama Kakkalmali Vs. Gurunath Hanmant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom252; (1943)45BOMLR519
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Bijapur in proceedings in execution of a decree dated August 9, 1934 for sale on a mortgage passed under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The mortgage debt was found to be Rs. 1,750, and it was made payable by four instalments. There was also a default clause provided by the decree. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the failure of the judgment-debtor to dispute the amount of the claim made in the application for execution after he had received a notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, of the Civil Procedure Code, operates as a bar to his raising the dispute at another stage of the same execution proceedings, after the executing Court had made an order transmitting the application for execution to the Collector, on the principle of res judicata.2. The material facts may be shortly stated. The decree-holder alleged in his application for execution that as the judgment-debtor had not ...
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. the Central Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom90; (1943)45BOMLR379
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the appellant in an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Blackwell dismissing substantially a summons for review of taxation. There was a slight variation in the Taxing Master's order, but that is irrelevant for the moment. The motion asks that the Taxing Master be directed to forbear from issuing the allocatur pending the hearing of the appeal, and further that the Prothonotary and Senior Master be directed to forbear from entering on the margin of the appellate' Court's order of February 2, 1940, the amount of costs which may be allowed in the Taxing Master's allocatur under Rule 272 of the Rules of this Court.2. The circumstances in which the appeal arises are these. The order under which costs were directed to be paid by the present appellant was an order of this Court made on February 2, 1940, and the Taxing Master completed his taxation on June 18, 1941, and on June 25 the appellant made an application for revie...
Edward Radbone Vs. Juggilal Kamalapat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom228; (1943)45BOMLR402
Kania, J.1. This is a motion to stay the suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants have taken a step in the proceedings, to wit, made applications to the Court by consent precipes on two occasions to extend the time to file their written statement. These facts are not denied. The question is whether they amount to taking a step in the proceedings within the meaning of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. The plaintiff relies on Sarat Kumar Roy v. Corporation of Calcutta I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 443, in which the defendant corporation had taken out a summons for an order that they might have further time to file their written statement. With the same they had also sent a letter to the plaintiff's attorneys informing them that before filing the written statement an application would be made to the Court for an order of reference to arbitration in terms of the contract. It was held that in sp...
In Re: Surajlal Harilal Majmudar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom82; (1943)45BOMLR72
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, Broach & Panch Mahals, refusing bail to the petitioners who were charged with the offences punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 120 of the Rules under the Defence of India Act, 1939.2. Now ordinarily both these offences would be bailable offences under the Second Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with 'Offences against other Laws '; for, according to the fifth column thereunder all offences if punishable with imprisonment for one year and upwards, but less than three years, are treated as bailable. Under the imperative provisions of Section 496 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused would be entitled to be released on bail for the offences in question which fall under that description. But the learned Sessions Judge thought that the provisions of Section 496 are abrogated by Rule 130A of the Defence of India Rules, and that under the provisions of that rule a discreti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›