Mumbai Court July 1943 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.
Bhagwandas Totaram Agarval Vs. Chhaganlal Raichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom235(1); (1944)46BOMLR411
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 650 due on an instrument passed for Rs. 1,841 on September 18, 1937, and signed by ' the firm Shivkisen Totaram by the pen of the defendant.' The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a partner of the firm of Shivkisen Totaram, and that the other two partners had paid their shares in the amount of the instrument, and wanted to recover the balance from the defendant. Although the instrument is described as a promissory note for Rs. 1,841, it was stamped with only one anna stamp, and it was contended that the stamp was insufficient and, therefore, the instrument was inadmissible in evidence. The learned Judge below held that the instrument was a deedi of agreement as it made provision for the place of payment and, therefore, admitted it in evidence on payment of the deficit stamp and penalty. He held the amount claimed to be due from the defenda...
The Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad Vs. Vadilal Dalsukhram Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom233(1); (1944)46BOMLR408
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Ahmedabad made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The ground of the application is that such a claim as this does not lie and, therefore, the learned Judge had no right to pass the order which he did, and such order was not ' according to law ' within Section 25.2. The suit arose in these circumstances. In the year 1936-37 a bill was issued to the applicant by the Ahmedabad Municipality claiming certain rates, including drainage rate, and a demand was duly made under Section 104 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The applicant appealed against the demand under Section 110, but his appeal was dismissed by the Magistrate. Then he went in revision to the Sessional Court under Section 111, and that application was also dismissed. Then he came in revision to this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it has been held that, although ...
Parshottam Chhaganlal Vs. Kuberdas Hargovandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR607
Lokur, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the three suits filed by the landholders of the inam village Shahijpur Bogha against the inamdar of that village for a declaration that they are entitled to hold their respective lands in dispute as vechan salami lands subject to the payment of salami only and not liable to the levy of altered assessment or fine for being put to non-agricultural use and for an injunction restraining the inamdar from recovering any such altered assessment or fine from them. The trial Court decreed their claim, but the) lower appellate Court set aside the decrees and dismissed the suits.2. The lands involved in these three appeals are Survey Nos. 2|4, 46|3 and 1|1 respectively. They were put to non-agricultural use in 1919 by the construction of buildings on them, but the inamdar did not claim to levy altered assessment or fine and continued to recover only the salami as fixed at the survey settlement of 1912. These lands were purchased by the respective plain...
Parshottam Chhaganlal and ors. Vs. Kuberdas Hargavands
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom15
Lokur, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the three suits filed by the landholders of the inam village Shahijpur Bogha against the inamdar of that village for a declaration that they are entitled to hold their respective lands in dispute as vechan salami lands subject to the payment of salami only and not liable to the levy of altered assessment or fine for being put to non-agricultural use and for an injunction restraining the inamdar from recovering any such altered assessment or fine from them. The trial Court decreed their claim, but the lower appellate Court set aside the decrees and dismissed the suits. The lands involved in these three appeals are Survey Nos. 2/4,46/3 and 1/1 respectively. They were put to non-agricultural use in 1919 by the construction of buildings on them, but the inamdar did not claim to levy altered assessment or fine and continued to recover only the salami as fixed at the survey settlement of 1912. These lands were purchased by the respective plaintiff...
Rahmat Ilahi Vs. Mohammad Hayat Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR553
Clauson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Lahore, sitting as a Court of Second Appeal, dated April 25, 1939, allowing an appeal from a judgment of August 4, 1936, of a District Judge, which affirmed the decision of a Subordinate Judge of August 2, 1935, dismissing a suit of Mst. Umrao Begum (whom it will be convenient to call the plaintiff) who died on June 25, 1938, pending the appeal to the High Court, against Sheikh Rahmat Ilahi (whom it will be convenient to call the defendant). Two questions arise for their Lordships' determination, first, whether it was competent to the High Court to entertain the appeal from the District Judge, and, second, whether, assuming the appeal to be competent, the High Court were right in reversing the decision of the District Judge and holding, as they did, that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed by her in the suit.2. In a previous suit the defendant had obtained on March 30, 1933, a decree for Rs. 30,000 and in...
Charles Mortimer Eastley Vs. Ernest Do Rozario
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom189; (1944)46BOMLR389
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Full Court of Small Causes. The matter arises out of a divorce case which I tried, in which the wife was claiming judicial separation, and I held that she was not entitled to any relief. But I gave her costs. As my judgment shows, I felt some hesitation about it; but I thought that, as the solicitor had acted upon the advice of counsel, he might be said to have acted bona fide, and, therefore, I allowed the wife's costs as against the husband, although she had failed ; but I did not give costs as between solicitor and client. I am told that no application was made to me at the time forsolicitor and client costs, and that may well be, because counsel may have thought that, having regard to the view I had taken, it would be indiscreet to ask for more costs than I had given. At any rate, so far as my judgment went, the wife got party and party costs. Her solicitor then sued the husband in the Court ...
Manji Ramji Vs. H.M. Mehta and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom463; (1943)45BOMLR940
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Chagla in chambers dismissing an application to set aside an order made by the Prothonotary and Senior Master transmitting a certified copy of an award dated July 30, 1938, to the District Court of Ajmer for execution.2. The facts giving rise to the application are these. On July 30, 1938, the award in question was made, and on August 6 notice was given to the parties of the filing of the award under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899. On December 5, 1940, the award was filed in this Court. On May 14, 1942, an application was made to the Prothonotary & Senior Master to transfer the award for execution to the District Court of Ajmer, and such an order was made on June 25. On April 7, 1943, a summons was taken out for setting aside that order of the Prothonotary, and it is against the dismissal of that summons that this appeal is brought.3. The arbitration took place under the old Arbitration ...
Anant Bhikappa Patil Vs. Shankar Ramchandra Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR1
George Rankin, J.1. The appellant Anant brought the present suit in 1932 to recover certain watan properties from the respondent Shankar to whom possession had been given in 1928 by order of a Revenue Court. The properties in suit are the patilki right and the patilki watan lands of the village of Alnavar in the District of Dharwar in the Province of Bombay. Those properties are governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Bombay Act III of 1874) as amended by Bombay Act V of 1886, which imposes upon them a special rule of succession whereby every female, other, than the widow of the last male owner, is postponed to every male member of the watan family qualified to inherit. No other feature special to watan property was relied on or discussed in the Courts in India or mentioned in the printed cases lodged by the parties upon this appeal; and their Lordships are not called upon or prepared to consider whether upon other grounds the law applicable to watandars or watan property varies...
The Province Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR945
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated under Section 90 and Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code, raising the question 'Whether the Crown is bound by Sections 222(1) and 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.' The question is of some public importance to the citizens of Bombay, and the answer to it is not, I think, altogether free from doubt.2. The question arises in these circumstances. There is an estate in the neighbourhood of Matunga known as the Antop Hill estate, which belongs to Government, and in respect of which there is no adequate water supply. Accordingly the Municipality proposed to construct a 9' main under the Antop Hill Road, which is a private road belonging to the Government of Bombay, and they asked for the consent of Government to the proposed work. Government gave their consent on certain conditions, but the Municipality considered that they were not justified in agreeing to those conditions. The Municipality then proposed to get over th...
Walchand and Co., Ltd. Vs. the Hindustan Construction Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom5; (1943)45BOMLR951
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated under Section 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Order XXXVI asking the question :Whether on a true construction of Clause 2 of the Managing Agency agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant companies, excess profits tax payable or paid by the defendant company should be deducted in calculating the annual net profits of the defendant company for the purpose of the calculation of the managing agents' commission.2. A similar question came before this Court recently in the case of James Finlay & Co., Ltd. v. The Finlay Mills, Ltd. (1942) O.C.J. Suit No. 411 of 1942, decided by Beaumont C.J. and Kania J., on April 2, 1942 (Unrep.), and we held in that case that inasmuch as the agreement provided that in ascertaining the profits on which commission was based no deduction should be made for income-tax, super-tax or any other tax on income, the parties had in effect agreed that there should be no deduction in respect of ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »