Mumbai Court February 1947 Judgments
Parvatibai Shankar Pathaki Vs. Anandrao Pathaki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom159; (1947)49BOMLR789
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings and raises a short interesting question as to the proper denotation of the word 'avalad'. The decree which is the subject-matter of these execution proceedings was passed in 1870 and the respondent is seeking to execute it on the ground that he belongs to the family of the decree-holder by adoption. The claim made by the respondent was resisted by the judgment-debtors on the ground that he is not entitled to the benefit of this decree since he does not fall within the class of heirs mentioned under the sanad. That is how the question of the construction of the said sanad becomes material for the decision of this appeal. The learned trial Judge took the view that the words of the sanad referred only to the natural sons and their progeny, and since the present claimant had come into the family by adoption, he was not entitled to execute the decree. On appeal the contrary view prevailed with the result that the proceedings w...
Tag this Judgment!Subbappa Mallappa Huballi Vs. P.L. Bonni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR701
Dixit, J.1. The suit giving rise to these two appeals was filed under the following circumstances.2. Plaintiff No. 1 owns three houses which are municipal Nos. 7717, 7724 and 7739 and which are situate within the limits of the Hubli Municipality. As owner of these houses the plaintiff has to pay certain taxes, viz. (1) house-tax (2) general water-tax and (3) sanitary cess. In respect of these taxes he was assessed for 1938-39 to pay respectively Rs. 10, Rs. 24 and Rs. 3-8-0 in all Rs. 37-8-0.3. It appears that the Municipality was in January, 1939, superseded and under Section 219(2)(b) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, an administrator was appointed.4. On March 31, 1939, the Chief Officer of the municipal borough issued notice under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act calling upon all persons interested in the new revised assessment-list for 1939-40 to inspect it and to file objections against the valuation or assessment on or before May 15, 1939. On April 15, 1939, plaintiff No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Edalji Dhanjisha Anklesaria Vs. Sorabji Dinshawji Ginwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR137
Chagla, J.1. This is an administration suit to administer the estate of one Dhanjisha Edalji Anklesaria who died on April 27, 1944., leaving him surviving his three sons, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 4, and four daughters, plaintiff No. 3 and defendants Nos. 2, 5 and 6. His eldest son Maneksha predeccased him. Maneksha left his will and plaintiff No. 1 and defendants Nos. 1, 7 and 8 are the executors of that will.2. The deccased left a will and testament bearing the date May 8, 1934. He also left a supplemental will, dated April 25, 1944, and he also left a draft trust deed which did not bear any date. The will of May 8, 1934, the supplemental will of April 25, 1944, and the undated draft trust deed were all admitted to probate.3. This suit is filed because several difficulties have arisen as to the construction of these various testamentary documents and also because the plaintiffs allege that there was difficulty in the administration of the estate owing to the unhelpful...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lumbhardhar Zutshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR609
Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal by accused No. 1, Lumbhardhar Zutshi, from a conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that is to say, the receipt of illegal gratification by a Government servant, and the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment passed on him on June 19, 1946. Accused No. 2, Chimanlal Mohanlal, who was charged with abetment of the offence of accepting illegal gratification, was also convicted, but was sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. He has not preferred any appeal; no doubt, that is because of the lightness of his sentence, in itself difficult to understand as the Chief Presidency Magistrate has described the offence committed by him as being, 'no less heinous than accused No. 1'. We intend to give certain directions with regard to accused No. 2 at the conclusion of this judgment.2. Mr. M.C. Setalvad, who appears in this Court for the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee Vs. the Bank of Commerce
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR568
Porter, J.1. This group of cases and those which immedately follow necessitate a consideration of the principle upon which the respective jurisdictions of the Federal and Provincial legislatures in India are to be delimited and of the method to be adopted in determining the subjects which are to be dealt with by the one or the other under the provisions of Sections 99 and 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the three lists set out in the Seventh Schedule thereto.2. The question immediately in dispute is as to the validity of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940. By way of introduction it is enough to say that that Act limits the amount recoverable by a moneylender on his loans for principal and interest and prohibits the payment of sums larger than those permitted by the Act.3. The respondents are an incorporated body to which by an order of May 12, 1941, passed by the High Court of Calcutta under Section 153A of the Indian Companies Act, the assets of the Khulna Loan Bank, Ltd...
Tag this Judgment!Somashekhar Swami Vs. Bapusaheb Narayanrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom176; (1947)49BOMLR784
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The proceedings giving rise to these two appeals were initiated at the instance of the Karnatak Education Society for acquiring certain plots of land under the Land Acquisition Act in 1938 when notifications under the Act were duly issued. The property sought to be acquired consisted of five survey numbers, 3941, 3942, 8943, 8944 and 3945. In these appeals we are Concerned with three of them, namely 8942, 3943, and 3944. The compensation amount awarded for the acquisition of these three numbers is Rs. 20,645-9-2; and the question which arises in these proceedings is as to the method of apportionment of this amount between two claimants.2. These three survey numbers originally formed part of old survey No. 958 which was watan property assigned to the Patil watandar, who is one of the two claimants in this case. In 1865 the said property was sold to the predecessor of the Swami for Rs. 575. The alienee continued in possession of this property until 1915 when an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Megh Raj Vs. Allah Rakhia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR516
Wright, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of India, dismissing an appeal from the full bench of the High Court at Lahore, whose decision had been in favour of the respondents. The appellants have thus failed before both Courts in India.2. The question is whether a certain Act of the Punjab Legislature, Punjab Act IV of 1938, entitled the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, is void as being ultra vires of the Punjab Legislature. The action was commenced by the appellants as mortgagees claiming a declaration that they were mortgagees in possession of certain lands therein specified and that the defendants were not entitled to redeem without payment of the mortgage debt due under the mortgage deeds, and also an injunction to restrain the defendants as mortgagors from prosecuting their petition for redemption of the lands in the Court of the Collector under the Punjab Act IV of 1988 (hereinafter called the impugned Act) and for restitution of the lands unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›