Mumbai Court June 1942 Judgments
Damodar Venkatesh Dhopade Vs. Narhar Balwant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom65; (1943)45BOMLR87
Broomfield, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Wassoodew.2. The point for determination is whether a mortgagee in possession is liable to account under the following circumstances. In the year 1867 there was a mortgage, the terms of which are set out by Mr. Justice Wassoodew as follows :-That the advance, of Rs. 3,000 should be paid in yearly instalments of Rs. 200, that if the instalments were not paid, the mortgaged property which yielded an annual rental of Rs. 200 should be handed over to the mortgagee, that the latter should enjoy the profits in lieu of interest, and that interest thereof should run at 12 per cent, per annum.This translation of the operative terms of the mortgage is admittedly correct, except in one point. The original mortgage makes it clear that the interest at twelve per cent. per annum was provided merely for the period after default and before delivery of possession. It appears that the mortgagor neither paid the money nor han...
Tag this Judgment!Gurunath Eknath Sukre Vs. Laxmibai Govind Kanista
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom344; (1942)44BOMLR844
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order made in appeal by the Assistant Judge of Sholapur, The matter has been referred to a bench, because it was thought that there is some conflict between the decisions of this Court in Basayya v. Allayya (1925) 27 Bom. L.R. 477 and Rukmansa Rajansa v. Shankargouda Basangouda : AIR1941Bom83 , and that this case is one of a similar character. In point of fact, this case is governed by different considerations.2. The difficulty which arises in all these cases is as to the application of Order IX in cases in which there has been an adjournment, and which fall under Order XVII, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In the present case the hearing was fixed for February 14, 1939, and there was an adjournment to February 16, and on that date the defendant applied for a further adjournment which was refused. The learned trial Judge then heard the evidence of the plaintiff, and gave judgment in his favour. Subsequently the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Hiralal Marwadi Vs. Mahadu Dagdu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom24; (1942)44BOMLR855
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order rejecting his application for attachment of certain property belonging to his judgment-debtor. The defendant, who is an agriculturist, had mortgaged some of his property to the plaintiff and a consent decree was taken by the parties on November 22, 1938. The decree directed that the decretal amount was to be paid by installments of Rs. 600 per year and the first installment was to be paid on January 15, 1940; on failure to pay any installment the plaintiff was to apply to the Court under Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to realise the installment and on failure to pay any two installments the plaintiff was to realise the whole amount by sale of the mortgaged property ; if there was any deficit, it was to be realised from defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and from the joint family property of defendant No. 2. After the decree was taken the plaintiff made the present application on June 30, 1939, by which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Hem Chand Vs. Lala Peary Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR275
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated January 27, 1938, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi, dated November 30, 1936, in favour of the defendant-the appellant before the Board.2. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, on behalf of the members of the brotherhood of the Digambar Jains, for recovery of possession from the defendant of a house described as 'Jain Dharmashala,' situate at Khatra Mashru in Ward 4 of the town of Delhi, and entered as No. 48 in the municipal registers.3. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have' established their title to, and right to recover possession of, the suit property from the defendant.4. The parties to the suit are Jains, and are governed by the Mitakshara law. In the plaint, it was alleged that the house in dispute was purchased by one Lala Janaki Das, presumably with his own funds, that he 'converted...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Rai Vs. Ganga Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR270
Romer, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff and cross-appeal by the defendant arise out of a suit brought for the purpose of winding up the affairs of a partnership that existed many years ago between the two parties. The questions that the plaintiff seeks to have decided upon his appeal (apart from a question relating to interest) are questions whether in taking the accounts of the partnership certain items should or should not be allowed on one side or the other. They are purely questions of fact. It is not and cannot be suggested that they involve any question of principle whatsoever. Such being the case, they most emphatically are not questions that ought to be made the subject of an appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is true that the appeals concerned with only six out of a great number of items appearing in the account, and that two out of the six were very properly abandoned during the argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. But that is not to the point. If four of suc...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Adambhai Abdullabhai Budha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom316(1); (1942)44BOMLR763
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application for transfer, which raises a question of principle.2. The charge against the accused is of selling grass from Government land, and it is being tried before the Third Class Magistrate, Dohad. It appears that circumstances relating to the removal of the grass were enquired into by the Mamlatdar, who made a report, and on that report this case was instituted. The learned District Magistrate notes the main ground on which transfer is claimed as being the allegation that the Magistrate, and Treasury Aval Karkun, that is the trial Magistrate, is subordinate to the Mamlatdar, Dohad, on whose report and enquiry this case was instituted, and is therefore liable to be influenced in his judgment, and he disposes of the allegation in these words:The point is correct, but it would be unfair to the Magistrate to assume that he would allow his judgment in a criminal case to be influenced by his revenue superiors, without some definite evidence of bias.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!Thakorlal Vadilal Vs. Ambalal Bhikhabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR761
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application to stay a criminal complaint pending the hearing of a civil suit. It is an application of a very common type, my experience shows that the Magistrate to whom the application is made, almost always refuses the stay; his decision is almost always upheld by the Sessions Judge; the Sessions Judge's decision is nearly always supported by the Government Pleader; and this Court almost always reverses that decision. This Court will consider in cases of this sort where the public interest lies, and not merely where the supposed interest of the particular complainant lies.2. Now, the civil suit is of this nature. It is alleged that the suit property is joint family property, and that it was improperly sold away. The suit was filed in April, 1940. Subsequently the present applicant is said to have taken wrongful possession of a part of the suit property which, it is said, was in the rightful possession of the complainant who claimed as a tenant and was...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Karsandas Govindji Ved
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom326; (1942)44BOMLR756
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused by a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates of an offence under Section 390(7) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The learned Magistrates acquitted the accused on four grounds, and the Chairman of the Bench wrote a long and carefully reasoned judgment, for which we are indebted. The fact that we differ from the conclusions reached by the learned Magistrates should not be taken as detracting from our appreciation of the usefulness of their work.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that in 1938 the accused applied for permission to start a factory in which mechanical power was to be employed, and in March, 1939, he was prosecuted for establishing that factory without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner as required under Section 390 (1). Subsequently an arrangement was come to between the Commissioner and the accused, and the prosecution was withdrawn, and the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Upper India, Ltd. Vs. Robert Hercules Skinner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR267
Atkin, J.1. In these cases there are five consolidated appeals from five decrees of the High Court at Allahabad who varied decrees of the Subordinate Judge, Meerut, in mortgage suits instituted by the appellant. The transactions between the plaintiff bank now in liquidation and the relations of the respondents, and between those relations and the respondents, were numerous, and have been the subject of other litigation. But the question to be decided on this appeal, the construction of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, is a simple one, and the point can be discussed upon a concise statement of the facts. At various dates between 1904 and 1912 four brothers, cousins of the respondents, executed five mortgages of properties in Meerut, United Provinces, and in Hissar, Punjab. In one the mortgagors were the four brothers and in four only two of the brothers disposing of their two-fifth shares in the properties. Two of the mortgages were expressed to be cash credit loans payable afte...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Sundar Singh Majithia Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR9
George Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal by the assessees from a judgment of the High Court at Allahabad on a reference made under Sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred arises out of an assessment made for the year 1932-3 on the profits of a business carried on under the style of 'The Saraiyar Sugar Factory' at Saraiyar in the District of Gorakhpur in the United Provinces. The year of account is the year ending September 30, 1931, in accordance with the accounting practice of the assessees. The matter of substance in the present dispute is whether the assessment should be made upon the footing that the business belonged to a Hindu undivided family or upon the footing that it belonged to a firm of which the father, mother and three sons were partners on the terms of a written instrument dated February 12, 1933. The family are Sher Gill Jats of the Amritsar District of the Punjab. It is not disputed that they form a Hindu undivided family, b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›