Mumbai Court April 1942 Judgments
Raja Jagatjit Singh Vs. Raja Partab Bahadur Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR868
Thankerton, J.1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the ownership of certain plots of land which lie on the boundary of, or between, the estates owned by the parties in the Kheri district of Oudh. The suit was instituted on January 23, 1933, by the Deputy Commissioner of Kheri as Manager of the Court of Wards, Isanagar Estate, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kheri against the present appellant, the MahaRaja of Kapurthala. The plaintiff prayed for a declaratory decree that he was the rightful proprietor of the lands in suit. After trial, the Subordinate Judge delivered his judgment and dismissed the suit, except in respect of certain small areas of land not contested by the defendant, by decree dated December 22, 1933. The plaintiff appealed to the Chief Court, and, while the appeal was pending, the Isanagar Estate was released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards, and the present respondent, the Raja of Isanagar, was substituted as appellant in t...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Ram Chand Vs. Pandit Parbhu Dayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR1
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a redemption suit which was brought in the Court of the Subordinate. Judge of Agra in 1924, It has reference to a village called Muthamai in the district of Agra, which at one time belonged to a zemindar called Nawal Singh. In this village the plaintiff inherited the interest of the mortgagee under a mortgage of 1893 granted by Nawal Singh to the plaintiff's grandfather : having brought a suit (No. 50 of 1911) to enforce that mortgage the plaintiff purchased Muthumai at the judicial sale in 1923 and thus became vested with the right and title which Nawal Singh had possessed in 1893. The question now raised is as to the amount which he must pay to free Muthamai from the prior charge created by a mortgage granted by Nawal Singh in 1882 over three other villages as well as Muthamai. Is it the whole sum outstanding upon the mortgage of 1882 Or is he, in the events which have happened, entitled to redeem Muthamai on payment of a part th...
Tag this Judgment!Shivshankar Chhaganlal Shukla Vs. Laxman Chimanlal Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom83; (1943)45BOMLR78
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that he has, as the owner of the house adjoining the suit house, a better right to buy it than the defendant who purchased it from its owner for Rs. 13,101. The plaintiff's house is situated to the south of the suit house while the defendant's house is to its north. Originally the plaintiff's house as well as the suit house belonged to one Ambalal Shivlal. The latter sold both the houses to Devshankar at different dates. Thereafter Devshankar's grandson Hariprasad Somnath sold the suit house to the original defendant, who is now dead, in 1935. The defendant had purchased his own house to the north of the suit house in 1919 from a stranger. The sale-deed of the suit house in the defendant's favour was passed on May 23, 1935, and the plaintiff's case in substance was that on that date he was at a place called Ghodasar at some distance from Ahmedabad where the suit house is situated. He was the karbhari of the Th...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas Damodar Vs. Lakhmidas Harjiwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom266; (1942)44BOMLR609
Chagla, J.1. Mr. Amin raises a very interesting point of practice. On September 29, 1941, by a consent Judge's order, at the instance of defendant No. 1, a commission was issued to Calcutta for the examination of certain witnesses. Liberty was given to the plaintiff to join in that commission and to examine witnesses on his behalf if he was so advised after giving the names of such witnesses to defendant No. 1 one week before being examined. Pursuant to the order the. plaintiff examined Gordhandas on commission.2. Mr. Bahadurji who appears for the plaintiff closes his case without tendering the evidence of Gordhandas.3. Mr. Amin for defendant No. 1 contends that as soon as the commission was returned the evidence taken on commission became evidence in the case and, without Mr. Bahadurji tendering it, it is evidence on which he is entitled to rely. Mr. Amin contends in the alternative that in any case Mr. Bahadurji is bound to tender that evidence.4. Mr. Amin relies on Order XXVI, Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangavva Gulappa Khandekar Vs. Gulappa Kariyeppa Khandekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom258; (1942)44BOMLR614
Broomfield, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur in certain maintenance proceedings.2. On January 15, 1940, the opponent Gulappa was directed to pay maintenance to his wife Sangawa at the rate of Rs. 2 a month. Even at that time he alleged that his wife was living in adultery with one Anya, but the evidence which he produced on the point was then considered insufficient. The opponent did not pay the maintenance ordered, and on January 14, 1941, Sangawa applied to enforce the order under Section 488(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In reply to the notice the opponent appeared and contended as before that his wife had been and was living in adultery with the said Anya. After hearing the evidence on the point the Magistrate cancelled the order for maintenance on September 25, 1941. The effect of this was that Sangawa's application to enforce the order was rejected.3. Both the trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, to whom an application was made in revision, accep...
Tag this Judgment!Shivrao Shesgiri Kalbag Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR668
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Karwar. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of State for India in Council, that is, in substance, the Local Government, for damages for the wrongful sale and seizure of goods and cattle belonging to the plaintiff, and the question at issue arises in this way.2. In 1929 the Collector of Kanara executed a lease in favour of the plaintiff for four years of certain lands on the terms that the plaintiff should bring the lands into cultivation during the term. In order to bring the lands into cultivation the plaintiff on September 8, 1930, borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,500 from Government under the provisions of the Land Improvement Loans Act of 1883, and the plaintiff's brother acted as his surety for the loan. On April 29, 1934, the Collector seized certain goods of the plaintiff, including wire fencing on the land, and removed these goods to his own custody. The plaintiff being in difficulties about repaying the loan...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Osman Chotani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom289; (1942)44BOMLR618; [1942]10ITR429(Bom)
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a revision application raising a point of some general importance.2. Three persons are being charged with the offence of cheating, the general nature of the case alleged against them being that accused Nos. 1 and 2 having purchased steel of an inferior quality at a cheap price in the bazaar, resold it through the instrumentality of accused No. 3 to a Government Department at a greatly enhanced price, falsely representing the steel to be of a superior quality.3. We are told that many of the books of accused No. 1, which might be relevant, are not forthcoming. In order to remedy this defect, the investigating officer served a summons on the Income-tax Commissioner of Bombay, under Section 65 of the Bombay City Police Act, requiring him to produce certain documents lodged by accused No. 1 with the Income-tax Department in connection with his return for income-tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax declined to produce the documents in question, considering himself pre...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Byramji Jeejeebhoy Vs. the Province of Bombay (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom312; (1942)44BOMLR687
Blackwell, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the plaintiff for a review of taxation which has been adjourned into Court. I have stated how the matter arises in my judgment on the summons taken out by the 1st defendants to review the taxation, and for this purpose that judgment may be referred to.2. The main argument centred round the second objection, which is to the allowance of the fees of three counsel. The Taxing Master in his judgment said that in the exercise of his discretion he had allowed the fees of three counsel as the matter was of very considerable importance.3. The first point taken by Mr. Kolah for the plaintiff was that this was a long caused to which High Court Rule 548 (ii) (h) applies, and that as the Court had not sanctioned more than one counsel the fees of only one counsel should have been allowed. As this point had not been taken in the objections, Mr. Kolah applied for leave to amend. The application was resisted, and I refused leave to amend. Mr. Kola...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Byramji Jeejeebhoy Vs. the Province of Bombay (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom310; (1942)44BOMLR682
Blackwell, J.1. This is a chamber summons adjourned into Court for a review of taxation.2. The plaintiff who is the owner of certain immoveable properties in the City of Bombay sought by this suit a declaration that Part VI of the Bombay Finance Act of 1932, incorporated therein by the Bombay Finance (Amendment) Act, 1939, is ultra vires of the Bombay Provincial Legislature, and a declaration that the urban immoveable property tax purporting to be levied by Section 22 which forms part of the said Part VI of the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, is illegal and invalid. He also sought further declarations that certain notices served on him by the Bombay Municipality under Section 202 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act under powers purporting to be conferred by the impugned Act were invalid so far as they related to the Urban Immoveable Property Act, and other consequential relief.3. This suit was dismissed with costs and the 1st defendants lodged their bill of costs for taxation. Objections wer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Homi M. MehtA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1942
Reported in: [1943]11ITR142(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The year of assessment is the financial year 1937-38, and the accounting periodis the calendar year 1936; so that we have to deal with the; income-tax Act of 1922 before the amendment of 1939.The Commissioner has raised two questions. The first one is :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case there was evidence before the Income-tax authorities on which they could come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 96,587, which has been included in the assessment, represented profits from trading in shares and not capital appreciation.'On that question no argument has been addressed to us, and Sir Jamshedji Kanga for the assessee says that he does not wish to press the question, and agrees that it should be answered in the affirmative, that being the sense in which the Commissioner has answered it. So that we are only concerned with the second question, which is in these terms ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »