Mumbai Court March 1944 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.
Maganlal Bhagwandas Vs. Ahmedabad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom251; (1945)47BOMLR100
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. The appellant in this case was the plaintiff in the trial Court, and he brought a suit against the defendant-respondent, the Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad, to recover Rs. 347 which he had paid by way of terminal tax and to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from levying any such tax on the plaintiff's goods. The plaintiff had a brick-kiln within the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad in a survey number which abuts on the limits of the Municipal area. As there is no direct access from this survey number to the Naroda Road he had to carry the bricks manufactured by him in his survey number to some distance outside the Municipal limits in order to join the Naroda Road in the process of taking the bricks from the factory to his place of business. When the bricks were being brought into the Municipal limits after having been taken out of those limits, the Municipal servants at the municipal toll naka levied a tax of Rs. 347 on those bricks. The plaintiff, thereupo...
Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Kalyanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom78; (1944)46BOMLR733
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These are three revision applications filed against the decisions of the Small Cause Court Judge, Ahmedabad, in three suits, Nos. 4006, 4005 and 4034 of 1941, The plaintiff in suits Nos. 4006 and 4005 was the same person, KalyanbhaiHaribhai, and the plaintiff in suit No. 4036 was his brother, Nanubhai Haribhai, AH the three suits were filed against the Ahmedabad Municipality for refund of certain amounts recovered by it from the plaintiffs as drainage tax for the years 1939-40 and 1940-41. The learned Judge passed decrees in favour of the plaintiffs in all the three suits, and against those decrees the Ahmedabad Municipality and the Administrator of the Municipality have applied in revision. The points involved in all the three suits were the same, and the judgment given in suit No. 4006 which is the subject of Revision Application No. 370 governs all the three suits.2. The plaintiffs jn the three suits were the owners of buildings within the municipal limits of Ahmeda...
Daulatrao Malojirao Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR214
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal and cross-appeal from the judgment dated July 31, 1940, of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, claims to be the saranjamdar of an estate of which his ancestors had been tenants-for-life for a great many years. The estate was formerly part of a larger saranjam estate known as the Gajendragad estate registered in the books of Government in the name of an elder branch of the appellant's family. In or about the year 1842 one of the saranjamdars of this elder branch appointed as manager of a part of the Gajendragad estate a certain kulkarni, who was the ancestor of respondent No. 2. Whether this appointment was made orally or in writing does not appear, and no documentary confirmation of it is forthcoming. However, there is no dispute between the parties that some arrangement was in fact made, nor is it disputed that in consideration of hereditary services to be rendered by the kulkar...
Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. Govindlal Ishwarlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom237; (1945)47BOMLR118
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by a sub-tenant to be joined as a party in a suit between the superior landlord and his own landlord. The application is based upon the definition clause in the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, where the expression 'tenant' is extended to an under-tenant. In my judgment this is a complete fallacy and has nothing to do with the matter at all. There is no statutory right or any other right which gives an under-tenant a title or right to intervene in proceedings between a superior landlord and his own landlord in order to seek relief against an order of forfeiture. That being so, there is no way in which he can intervene except by an application showing that something will be done in the proceedings which will prejudice his legal rights. But when the form of the warrant of execution which may be obtained by the superior landlord in this case is examined, it will be found that that argument is groundless, since the warrant is limited to t...
Jangumiya Suleman Madiwale Vs. Hashamsaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom504; (1945)47BOMLR400
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Judge at Belgaum directing the plaintiff-applicants to pay ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 9,000. The fee that was ordered to be paid by the Court was not paid, and the appeal was, thereupon, rejected for non-payment of court-fees.2. In this case the plaintiffs filed a suit to redeem, along with defendants Nos. 9 and 10, as heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagor, a mortgage for Rs. 1,000 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 8 effected on January 1, 1896. The mortgage was a usufructuary one. The plaintiff filed the suit for taking accounts of the mortgage and for redemption.3. The suit was resisted on several grounds. It was contended by the defendants that the suit was barred by the decree in Suit No. 15 of 1908. They also contended that they had effected several improvements and were entitled to get credit there for in taking accounts. But the principal contention was that while th...
Akku Prahlad Kulkarni Vs. Ganesh Prahlad Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom217
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal raises an important question of Hindu law regarding the status of a permanently kept concubine whose husband is living, and her right to be maintained out of her paramour's estate after his death. The facts of the case, as found by the Courts below are not disputed here. The plaintiff's father Pralhad died in 1933, having made a gift of some of his ancestral joint family property to defendant 1, who was in his exclusive and continuous keeping as his mistress for seventeen years till his death, although her husband is still living and has not divorced her. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover possession of the said property from her on the ground that the gift was invalid and not binding on him. Both the Courts below have held that the property being ancestral joint property, its gift by the plaintiff's father is invalid and the plaintiff is entitled to recover its possession from defendant 1. The trial Court, however, held that as defendant 1 was the ...
Jivanlal Kandas Vs. Ramtuji Bhaiji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR795
Sen, J.1. This application arises out of darkhast proceedings. The petitioner obtained a decree for about Rs. 140 against the opponents, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are labourers in a textile mill at Ahmedabad, in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. Thereafter he filed a darkhast and applied for the attachment of the amounts of bonus for the year 1942 which the judgment-debtors were to receive sometime-in the beginning of 1943. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtors and they resisted the darkhast on the ground inter alia that the amounts sought to be attached were part of their wages and that under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, no part of their wages could be attached. This contention was upheld by the execution Court which dismissed the application. It held that the payment of bonus which the judgment-debtors were to receive must be deemed to be ' by way of additional reward or remuneration to the employee for the labour rendered ' by them and that, therefore...
Sopher Vs. the Administrator General of Bengal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR865
Viscount Maugham, J.1. The questions raised in this appeal relate to the construction of the will of Edward Abraham Sopher, a resident in Calcutta, domiciled in British Indisf who had carried on the business of a stock and exchange broker in that country.2. His will was dated April 16, 1926. He died on February 24, 1939, leaving him. surviving a widow, respondent No. 2, and two sons, the appellants, The sons were of age at the date of his death but unmarried. On May 1, 19S9, probate of the will was granted to respondent No. 1 the sole executor and trustee of the will.3. By his will the testator, after certain bequests of the goodwill of his business and of other property not material to the present appeal, proceeded to dispose of his residuary estate by some very elaborate and somewhat confusing clauses. After the usual trusts for conversion, the trustee was directed to stand possessed of the residuary estate upon trust out of the income to pay the testator's widow a monthly sum of Rs....
Jivan Lal Kandas Vs. Ramtuji Bhaiji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom119
ORDERSen, J.1. This application arises out of darkhast proceedings. The petitioner obtained a decree for about Rs. 140 against the opponents, defendants 1 and 2, who are labourers in a textile mill at Ahmedabad, in the Court ' of Small Causes at Ahmedabad. Thereafter he filed a darkhast and applied for the attachment of the amounts of bonus for the year 1942 which the judgment-debtors were to receive sometime in the beginning of 1943. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtors and they resisted the darkhast on the ground inter alia that the amounts sought to be attached were part of their wages and that under Section 60, Civil P.C., 1908, no part of their wages could be attached. This contention was upheld by the execution Court which dismissed the application. It held that the payment of bonus which the judgment-debtors were to receive must be deemed to be 'by way of additional reward or remuneration to the employee for the labour rendered' by them and that, therefore, such bonus too...
Yeshwant Bala Vs. Babai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom67; (1944)46BOMLR728
Macklin, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara. The suit was brought by the plaintiff as a person adopted into a joint family, and he claimed the property in suit from the persons in whose possession it was. But his suit was dismissed principally on the ground that the matter was res judkata by reason of the decision in some litigation that was launched in 1914. Other questions; as to the validity of the adoption and limitation were raised in the suit; but it is not necessary to deal with them in this appeal.2. In 1907 one Bhiku was the last surviving male member of the joint family. He died in that year Waving a daughter named Chandrabhaga, who was married to a man named Anant. At the same time there was in existence one Nana (defendant No. 2 in the present litigation), who was the son of Bhiku's half sister Babai. There was also in existence another Babai (defendant No. 1 in the present litigation), the wido...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »