Mumbai Court April 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.
The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Motilal Champalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom272; (1942)44BOMLR591
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Chagla, sitting as the Insolvency Judge, and it raises a question as to the rate at which the Official Assignee can charge commission under Rule 180(b) of the Bombay Insolvency Rules.2. The facts are that the insolvents were adjudicated on July 1, 1938, and on March 6, 1940, a scheme of composition was suggested by the debtors, and in due course, on April 15, 1941, that scheme was sanctioned by the Court, and the adjudication was annulled. The scheme provided, in substance, that the Official Assignee should be the trustee of the scheme, and under Clause 2 he was, in the first instance, to pay all fees and percentage, costs, charges, expenses and commission payable to the Court and to the Official Assignee out of the moneys to be received by him under the scheme. Then under clause 4 he was to pay out of the balance of the moneys a composition of Re. 0-5-6 in the rupee. Then it was provided that certain outside parties wer...
James Finlay and Co. Ltd. Vs. Finlay Mills, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR774
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated under Section 90 and Order XXXVI, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, raising the following question:Whether under Clause 2(b) of the Managing Agency Agreement between the plaintiff company and the defendant company dated December 19, 1923, the plaintiff company is entitled to be paid ten per cent. commission on the net annual income of the defendant company before setting aside any sums for payment of excess profits tax payable by the defendant company under the Indian Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.2. The question turns entirely on the construction of Clause 2(b) of the managing agency agreement, which provides for payment of commission to the managing agents of the following amount:A commission of ten per cent. on the net annual income of the company before setting aside any sum to reserve or depreciation funds or for payment of income-tax or super-tax or any other tax on income.That is the only portion of the clause which is relevant.3...
Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar Vs. Moreshwar Madan Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom302; (1942)44BOMLR703; MANU/MH/0039/1942
Chagla. J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to enforce an indemnity. It seems that in the year 1934 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay for the lease of a plot of land bearing No. 226A of the Dadar Matunga Estate for a term of 999 years. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff was put in possession of that plot of land. At the request of the defendant the plaintiff agreed to transfer the benefit of the agreement for lease with the Municipal Corporation to the defendant. Thereupon the defendant entered into possession of the plot of land and commenced to erect a building thereon. The materials for the construction of the building were supplied by one Keshavdas Mohandas, and the amount therefor exceeded Rs. 5,000. Keshavdas Mohandas made pressing demands upon the defendant for the payment of that amount, and at the request of the defendant the plaintiff mortgaged the property to Keshavdas Mohandas by depositing the title deed...
Ramdas Dwarkadas Vs. the Orient Pictures
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom332; (1942)44BOMLR739
Blackwell, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the defendants for a stay of this suit upon the ground that the agreement out of which the suit is alleged to arise contains an arbitration clause.2. By an agreement in writing made on May 12, 1941, between Shantiprasad Govindram Khandaria and Gopinath Mahadeo Tendulker described therein as financing and managing partners of the Orient Pictures, Bombay, and Mr. Ramdas Dwarkadas described in the agreement as the proprietor of Messrs. India Cine Laboratory, Bombay, Mr. Ramdas Dwarkadas who is the plaintiff in the suit agreed to supply raw films mentioned in the agreement to the other party to the agreement who are the defendants as and when required from time to time for a picture named 'Sidha-Rasta'. The plaintiff further agreed to process the picture in his laboratory, develop it and print it to the final finish. He was to charge the defendants a sum of Rs. 2,500 for complete developing and printing charges and supplying a Rush-pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›