Mumbai Court March 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.
Ahmed Ebrahim Vorajee Vs. the Government of the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom50; (1942)44BOMLR912
1. This is an appeal by the applicant who prayed for cancellation of a succession certificate issued to him by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Surat in respect of the property of one deceased Ebrahim Ahmed Vorajee in so far as the certificate related, among other properties, to 9,600 shares of the Consolidated Tin Mines of Burma, Limited, valued at Rs. 43,200 and for an order of refund of the court-fee stamp duty of Rs. 1,488-13-0 paid with respect to the said shares.2. The applicant's case in substance was that his father Ebrahim Ahmed Vorajee died on October 26, 1933, leaving various shares and securities. Among them were the aforesaid shares of the Consolidated Tin Mines of Burma, Limited, the head office of which was in London. A certificate was granted to him in respect to all the properties and on the strength of that certificate he applied to the London head office of the Tin Mines Company for transfer of the shares to his name. He was, however, informed that the shares cou...
Motilal Tejsi and Co. Vs. Ramchandra Gajanan Kherodkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom334; (1942)44BOMLR745
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiffs are a firm doing business as building contractors. By a contract dated March 29, 1938, the plaintiffs agreed with the defendant to construct a building on Plot No. 8 at Shivaji Park, Mahim, in consideration of a lump sum of Rs. 26,351. The plaintiffs allege in the plaint that in pursuance of their contract they carried out the building work specified in the contract and duly completed the same. In addition to the principal work specified in the contract, the plaintiffs also carried out certain additional work. The plaintiffs' claim with regard to this additional work was settled for Rs. 850 on September 2, 1940, and there is no dispute with regard to this claim. On September 9, 1940, the architects issued their final certificate certifying that a sum of Rs. 3,701 remained due and payable by the defendant in respect of the work done under the contract and also the additional work done by the plaintiffs which was settled at Rs. 850 as I have already stated. Va...
Bai Suraj Vs. Haribhai Motabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom54; (1942)44BOMLR907
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings, and the question is whether an executing Court can refuse to execute a consent decree on the ground that to do so would be in contravention of Section 1 of the Bhagdari and Narwadari Act (Bom. V of 1862).2. The plaintiffs, now respondents, are the owners of lands in a bhagdari village. They mortgaged two sets of properties described as B and C to the defendant appellant by three mortgages, one in 1923, one in 1926 and one in 1929. The plaintiffs remained in possession of the B properties under a rent-note. The mortgagee got possession of the C properties. In 1931 he filed two suits for arrears of rent and possession of the B properties, and in 1932 the plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the mortgage was void as contrary to the Bhagdari Act and for possession of the C properties.3. Section 1 of the Bhagdari Act provides as follows:--No portion of a bhag or share in any bhagdari or narwadari village other than a rec...
Hanmant Bhimrao Kalghatgi Vs. Gururao Swamirao Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom36; (1942)44BOMLR880
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal, which comes before me on a reference occasioned by a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Divatia and Mr. Justice Macklin, raising this question:Whether on the terms of the decree under execution the installment decree came to an end after the decree-holder unsuccessfully exercised his option in the first darkhast to recover the whole amount?2. The facts giving rise to the question are these. On February 26, 1927, there was a decree for Rs. 1,850, payable by annual installments of Rs. 300 each, the first installment being due on May 31, 1927, and subsequent installments on May 31 in succeeding years, and there was a default clause providing that if the defendants failed to pay duly any one installment, the plaintiff should recover forthwith the whole of the remaining amount and further interest by sale of the mortgaged property at his pleasure. There was default in payment of the first installment, and on) July 1, 1929, the decree-holder i...
Emperor Vs. Nagindas Narottamdas Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom214; (1942)44BOMLR452
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Surat, raising two questions which are of some general importance in relation to the practice in criminal Courts.2. The first question is :Is it obligatory on the accused under the law to submit a list of defence witnesses before the Court after the whole case of the prosecution is over, that is to say, after the further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses after the charge and the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses?3. In order to answer that question, one has to look at certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 211, which is one of the sections dealing with committal proceedings in cases triable by the Court of Session, or the High Court, provides;The accused shall be required at once to give in orally or in writing, a list of the persons (if any) whom he wishes to be summoned to give evidence on his trial.But Section 291 provides :[A...
Keshavlal Tribhovandas Vs. Bai Dahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom7; (1942)44BOMLR839
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad dismissing a suit brought by the appellant to recover the sum of Rs. 5,300 from the respondent who is the appellant-plaintiff's step-mother. The plaintiff's case was that he and his father Tribhovandas, husband of the defendant-respondent Bai Dahi, were members of a joint family and possessed joint family properties and that a sum of Rs. 5,000 forming part of the joint family money was deposited by him in the Saraspur Mills, Limited, of Ahmedabad on April 30, 1932. It is an admitted fact that this money was deposited and that it was deposited in the joint names of the plaintiff's father Patel Tribhovandas Jamnadas and Bai Dahi his wife. A receipt (exhibit 95) given by the company contained these words: 'Tribhovandas Jamnadas is the owner of the money. After his lifetime (which means after his death) Bai Dahi is to get the same.' Tribhovandas died on September 20, 1932, and on ...
Ramlal Hariram Agarwale Vs. Ratanlal Balchand Agarwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom1; (1942)44BOMLR830
Broomfield J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings which raises an interesting point of limitation.2. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants in a suit for sale on a mortgage for Rs. 54,000 and odd. The suit was filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Akola. The preliminary decree was made on September 30, 1926, and the final decree on July 2, 1927. As the mortgaged property was in the jurisdiction of the First Class Subordinate Judge of East Khandesh, the respondent applied in October, 1927, for transfer of the decree to that Court. An order of transfer was made on December 22, 1927, and the documents required by Order XXI, Rule (5, i.e. a copy of the decree and certificate of non-satisfaction, were sent to the Court at Jalgaon on September 3, 1928. A darkhast was filed to recover the amount of the decree by sale of the property, but there were no bidders and on that ground the darkhast was disposed of on March 22, 1933.3. On May 12, 1934, the de...
Shivshankareppa Mahadevappa Parakanhatti Vs. Shivappa Parappa Kupati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom27; (1942)44BOMLR874
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree of the learned Assistant Judge of Belgaum. The suit was instituted to enforce specific performance of an agreement of sale dated November 23, 1935, whereunder defendant No. 1, who was the only executant of the document, had agreed to sell the entire survey Nos. 19 and 20 of Yellimanoli in the Hukeri taluka to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000. The agreement referred to certain transactions between the vendor and other persons which compelled him and his co-sharer; to file a suit in 1928 (suit No. 521) against those opposing their peaceful possession of the property, and recited that the object of the sale was to provide the vendor with the means of meeting the cost of the litigation against the supposed trespassers. Those trespassers were defendants Nos. 3 to 20. The co-sharer of the vendor was defendant No. 2. The agreement further recited that the latter had agreed to transfer his interests in the lands to the vendor and therefore he...
The City Municipality Vs. the Hindustan Construction Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom30; (1942)44BOMLR890
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the learned Assistant Judge of Jalgaon. It arises from a claim of the City Municipality of Bhusaval to recover Rs. 364-12-3 as octroi duty from the respondent-defendant. It is common ground that the defendant, who is a railway contractor, brought certain goods between January 15, 1936, to December 3, 1936, into the limits of the municipal district which were liable under the rules of the Municipality to pay octroi duty. They were brought without passing the 'import Nakas' fixed by the Municipality for collection of such dues. The main defence which prevailed in the Courts below was that under Section 203 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (Bom. XVIII of 1925) the Municipality could not institute a suit for the recovery of octroi duty in a civil Court. Accordingly the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff-Municipality has therefore filed this second appeal.2. Section 203 of the Act upon which the defendant relies is as f...
Shidrao Narayanrao Gumaste Patil Vs. the Municipality of Athni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom21; (1942)44BOMLR849
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the learned Assistant Judge of Belgaum. The plaintiff, the Municipality of Athni, instituted this action against the defendant, who is an owner of certain properties situated within the municipal district, to recover arrears of house-tax and general sanitary cess due from him for a period extending over twelve years before the suit and also interest on those arrears. The defendant contended inter alia that the claim was barred by limitation, The trial Court thought that the claim to the general sanitary cess was so barred, but allowed the claim to the house-tax and passed a decree for the said tax in the amount, of Rs. 332 with interest thereon. It directed that the tax should be recovered by sale of the properties described in the plaint belonging to the defendant. Against that decree both parties appealed. The plaintiff appealed against the rejection of the claim to the general sanitary cess, while the defendant appealed agai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »