Mumbai Court December 1942 Judgments
The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Jehangir Sorabji Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom336; (1943)45BOMLR683
Chagla, J.1. This is in the nature of a mortgage suit. The preliminary mortgage decree was passed on January 17, 1941. The decree absolute for sale was passed on August 7, 1941, and the mortgaged properties were ordered to be sold by the Commissioner of this Court. By a consent order dated April 10, 1942, it was ordered that the properties should be sold in eight lots. On October 22, 1942, the Commissioner put up the properties for sale. Lots Nos. 2 to 8 were first put up for sale but were not sold as the reserved bids were not reached. The Commissioner then put up lot No. 1 for sale. This lot was purchased by one Fateh Mahomed Usman for Rs. 43,000. A sum aggregating to Rs. 1,53,881-7-5 is certified by the Commissioner to be due to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 4 and defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7, the various mortgagees who have been impleaded in the suit. Defendant No. 2 who is the mortgagor has brought into Court a sum of Rs, 1,56,500 which includes the afore-mentioned sum of Rs. 1,53,8...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nana Shahu Sonavane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom209; (1943)45BOMLR303
Divatia, J.1. This reference made by the Sessions Judge at Poona raises a novel and interesting point as to the meaning of the word 'procession' in R. 56 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The two accused were charged with going in procession to Laxmi Road Chowk via the City Post Office at Poona in contravention of a notification issued by the Government under Rule 56(1). The notification was to the effect that no procession shall be held in any place in the Province of Bombay except with the previous permission in writing of the District .Magistrate, and no person shall take part in such procession in respect of which such permission had not been obtained. Under Rule 56 (1) :The Provincial Government may, for the purpose of securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of war by general or special order, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions upon, the holding of or taking part in public processions, meetings ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Gopal Joshi Vs. Gopal Dhondo Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR980
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against her husband for past and future maintenance and dismissed by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try it.2. The plaintiff was married to defendant No. 1 about the year 1913 or 1914 and they have been living apart since about the year 1920. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 3,300 for arrears of maintenance and future maintenance at Rs. 400 per annum and a charge for the amounts on the property described in the plaint. At the date of suit the plaintiff was living in Sangli and her husband was living in Miraj, but the suit was filed in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum as the property sought to be charged with the maintenance is situated in Belgaum district.3. Defendant No. 1 contended that he had sold the whole of that property to his natural father Vinayak Krishna and had no interest left in it. If the property in suit be found not liable to th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hormasji Ardeshir Mahudavala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom183; (1943)45BOMLR297
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the District Magistrate, West Khandesh, taking cognizance on five charge-sheets sent by the Nandurbar police-station against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and transferring them to the Resident Magistrate, Nandurbar, for trial according to law under Section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The same charge-sheets had been first sent by the Police Sub-Inspector of Nandurbar town to the Resident Magistrate himself. The petitioner then appeared before the learned Magistrate and objected to his trial by him on the ground that he had no jurisdiction, as no part of the offence alleged against him was committed in any place within his jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate upheld the contention and returned the charge-sheets to the Police Sub-Inspector in order that they might be filed in the competent Court.2. The facts alleged are that the petitioner sent letters to various merchants of Bom...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1942
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR16
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated February 8, 1938, which reversed a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad dated March 31, 1933, in favour of the plaintiff-the appellant before the Board.2. The plaintiff is the Ahmedabad Municipality; and the defendant is, the Secretary of State.3. The question for decision is whether, in the circumstances mentioned below, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant sums of money amounting to Rs. 48,156-5-0 together with interest which were deducted by the Government of Bombay from grants for primary education made by them to the Ahmedabad Municipality, and during its supersession, to the Committee of Management.4. The facts are not in dispute, and may be briefly stated :-On March 9, 1920, the Government of Bombay sanctioned the grant of Rs, four lakhs to the plaintiff in connection with a scheme for the acquisition of building sites for primary schools. Tw...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidhar Chatterjee Vs. International Film Company Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1942
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR178
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of commercial law under the Indian Contract Act. It is brought by the plaintiff, who carries on business from Calcutta as a distributor of cinema films. The defendants are a limited company who import such films into India. The contract between the parties was expressed in a letter dated May 8, 1936, sent by the defendants to the plaintiff, under which the plaintiff was to maintain at his own cost the defendants' office in Calcutta and handle their films in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Assam and Burma in conjunction with the defendants' head office at Cawnpore. The main stipulation was in the following terms :2. That we shall deliver you a brand new positive print of each picture approximately at the average of one picture a month and we shall pay for all the royalties to the producers for the exploitation of the pictures and in consideration of this, you will pay us a sum of Rs. 1,750 towards the cost of each print supplied to you...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Habibulla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1942
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR189
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant is the hereditary mutawalli of a waqf estate, and as such he draws remuneration, and the question in the appeal arises on a claim by him that the income thus received by him is exempt from taxation, which came before the High Court of Judicature at. Fort William in Bengal on a reference by the respondent, at the appellant's request, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, with a statement of the case and the opinion of the respondent rejecting the appellant's claim to exemption. The question of law referred to the Court was :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 49,500 received by the assessee as his remuneration as mutawalli was ' agricultural income' within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act?'For the assessment year 1938-1939 the appellant was assessed for income-tax purposes on an amount which included the sum of Rs. 49,500 under the head of salaries, which was the appellant's remuneration as m...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Dutt Sarkar Vs. Dhirendra Nath Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1942
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR192
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought by special leave from a decree dated March 29, 1938, passed by the High Court at Calcutta on second appeal. The respondents have not appeared before the Board and Mr. Wallach for the appellant has carefully discharged his duty to see that all relevant matters are placed before their Lordships. The decree under appeal reversed the decrees of the Additional District Judge and Subordinate Judge at Faridpur, dated respectively April 17, 1935, and February 6, 1933.2. The suit was begun on April 15, 1931. It was a suit for three years' rent of a permanent tenure which had been granted by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and of certain pro forma defendants to one Srinath Sarkar by a patta dated July 8, 1875, and for which a kabuliyat had been executed by Srinath on May 22, 1877. He was engaged on zemindari management in the service of the plaintiffs' predecessors who granted him the patta. He died childless in 1890 and his widow Patambari Dassee su...
Tag this Judgment!Raghbir Singh Lala Vs. Ram Rattan Seth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1942
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR185
Macmillan, J.1. The sole question presented for decision in this appeal is whether (1) certain shares of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, Limited, and (2), an interest in a timber business carried on by the firm of Sultan Singh & Company were the separate self-acquired property of the late Rai Bahadur Sultan Singh or were the property of the Hindu joint family of which Sultan Singh was a member.2. The question arose in consequence of a decree for Rs. 24,798-4-6 and costs obtained by the respondents on August 22, 1934, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Lahore against the appellant, recoverable from the estate of the late Sultan Singh, the appellant's father. The respondents on November 29, 1934, applied in the Court of the District Judge at Delhi for execution of this decree by the attachment of a kothi or bungalow in Delhi alleged to have been owned by Sultan Singh. The application was resisted by the appellant on various grounds and appropriate issues were framed.3. A...
Tag this Judgment!N. Abdul Rahim Vs. Lingappa Vaijappa Angol
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom273; (1943)45BOMLR534
Lokur, J.1. The property with which this appeal is concerned comprises two houses in Belgaum which belonged to one Banghi Hayat Badasha. He died in June, 1929, and in 1930 defendant No. 1 filed suit No. 434 of 1930 to recover the debt due from him. On May 7, 1931, when that suit was pending in the Belgaum Court, one of the heirs of Banghi Hayat filed an administration suit in the High Court at Madras where he had left some property. In his Suit No. 434 of 1930 defendant No. 1 obtained a money decree on November 3, 1931. In the administration suit the plaintiff Herekar was appointee receiver of the Belgaum property about the end of 1931. On January 31 1932, defendant No. 1 filed darkhast No. 663 of 1931 to execute his money decree and got the Belgaum property attached. He was not then a party to the administration suit. The Madras High Court passed a preliminary decree in that suit on March 11, 1932. On May 9, 1933, Herekar was authorised to take charge of the Belgaum property and manag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »