Mumbai Court August 1954 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.
Naranbhai Chhaganbhai Vs. Motibhai Ishwarbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom406; (1955)57BOMLR509
1. The present appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,000 due upon a 'khata' dated I5-12-1934, for Rs. 9,000 signed by two persons Motibhai Ishwar-bhai and Jiwabliai Javerbhai. Both the executants specifically say in the 'khata' that they would pay the amount of Rs. 9,000 on demand. The 'khata' obviously, therefore, is a promissory note. It is not necessary to state all the defences which were taken on behalf of the representatives of Motibhai Ishwar-bhai and Jiwabhai Javerbhai, for the reason that the only question in this appeal is one of limitation. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the suit was barred by limitation,The suit was upon a promissory note dated 15-12-1934, and was actually filed on 19-10-1946. In order to bring the suit within limitation, the plaintiff relied upon a part payment dated 22-10-1940, acknowledged in the handwriting of Kantilal Vilhal-bhai, the grandson of Jiwabhai. The part payment is endorsed upon the...
S.S. Miranda, Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR29
Desai, J.1. The plaintiffs sue the State of Bombay for a refund of a sum of Rs, 2,64,968-15-0 and interest on the same on the ground that they paid that amount under protest when additional duty was levied on foreign liquor by a notification issued on December 16, 1948.2. There is no dispute about the facts having bearing on the case. The plaintiffs were holders of a Trade and Import License which continued till March 31, 1949. In view of the policy of prohibition which was being inaugurated by the defendant the Excise Officer in charge addressed a letter to the plaintiffs on April 2, 1948, asking the plaintiffs to keep their goods in bond in their own duty-paid godown after paying excise duty on the same. Prior to this the Government in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, used to maintain established or licensed warehouses at various places in the State. In pursuance of that letter the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 2,17,355-14-0 to the...
Padmavati Vs. Narsilal P. Dalal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Bom81
1. The main question that arises to be answered on this originating Summons is whether the deed of trust dated 26-3-1941 made by one Lallubhai Vrijbhukhandas Khandwalla of certain moveable and immoveable properties at Santa Cruz creates a valid public charitable trust. Thereafter certain ancillary questions also arise to be answered in the light of the answer to be given to the main question stated above. The deed of trust is dated 26-3-1941 under which the settlor appointed himself, one Purshottamdas Harkisandas, defendant 1 and one Jehangir Hormusji Mody as the first trustees. During the life time of the Settlor it is stated that these trustees did not in fact act in any manner under the provisions of the deed of trust. The settlor died in Bombay on-17-4-1946 leaving a son Jayantilal Lallubhai Khandwalla & one grand-son named Ramit and a grand-daughter named Pratibha as his only heirs. Jayantilal died on 5-6-1948 leaving behind him a widow who is the plaintiff, three sons and one dau...
Mohandas Issardas and ors. Vs. A.N. Sattanathan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom113; (1954)56BOMLR1156; 1955CriLJ423; ILR1955Bom319
Chagla, C.J.1. These three appeals raise a common question and the question, is with regard, to the power of the Customs Authorities under Section 167, item 8, of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, to impose a penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000 in respect of goods which have been imported into India contrary to a prohibition against importation of the goods or restriction upon the importation of the goods.2. Now, Section 167 provides that the offences mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable to the extent mentioned in the third column of the same with reference to such offences respectively; and the* penalty mentioned in the third column with regard to item 8 is that such goods shall be liable to confiscation and that any person concerned in any such, offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods, or not exceeding one thousand rupees. In each of these three appeals, the customs Authorities have imposed a penalty exceeding Rs. ...
Bai Hiradevi and ors. Vs. Official Assignee of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom122; (1954)56BOMLR1148; ILR1955Bom309
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Coyajee J. and it arises out of a motion taken by the Official Assignee, who is the assignee of the estate and effects of the husband of appellant No. l and father of appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for a declaration that a deed of gift dated 22-5-1950, made between Daulatram Hukamchand and the appellants was void as against the Official Assignee. The learned Judge, after taking evidence, decided in favour of the Official Assignee and held this deed of gift to be void.2. Now, a petition was presented by a creditor on 9-8-1951, to adjudicate Daulatram insolvent, and the act of insolvency which was relied upon was a notice of suspension of payment of his debts given by him on 2-8-1951. He was adjudicated insolvent on 21-8-1951. The Official Assignee has challenged the deed of gift under Section 55, Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, and that section permits him to avoid a voluntary transfer. If a transfer is made in consideration of marri...
Basudeo Ramgovind Vs. Vachha and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom126; (1954)56BOMLR1136; ILR1954Bom1433
FACTS One Satyanarayanlal (plaintiff), who was carrying on business as a carpet merchant at Bhadohi in Banares filed a suit against Basudeo (defendant) to recover Rs. 35,000 odd in respect of certain consignments of carpets supplied by him to the defendant at Bombay. The defendant by his written statement admitted a sum of RS. 6,000.On January 10, 1960, the plaintiff took cut a summons for attachment before Judgment, and the property of the defendant, including certain carpets, was attached. On March 8, 1950, an order was made in chambers by Bhagwati J. raising the attachment, the relevant portion of which was as follows:'I do by and with such consent order that upon the Defendant depositing in Court a sum of Rs. 5,000 on or before the 10th day of March 1950 to the credit of this suit and hereby further undertaking to hand over to the Court Receiver appointed Receiver herein as hereafter provided the carpets mentioned in List 'B' hereto by way of security for the Plaintiff's claim in s...
Mazda theatres Limited Vs. Gordhandas Tribhuvandas Mangaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR1080
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee by which he held that he had no jurisdiction to maintain an originating summons by reason of the provisions of Rule 241 of the High Court Rules.2. The plaintiffs, who took out the originating summons, are the lessees and what they wanted was the proper construction of Clause 2(r) of the indenture of lease dated November 21, 1927, and they took out the summons against the lessor, who is the defendant. The parties were agreed on having this clause construed by means of an originating summons and the plaintiffs had agreed to pay the costs of the summons. The question that arose for construction was whether the defendant was entitled to use the complimentary pass issued to him by the lessees free from the liability to pay entertainment duty. Under Clause 2(r) the lessees had undertaken the obligation to give a complimentary pass to the lessor and reserve one box of six seats for the use of the lessor and his fa...
Ramji Keshavji Contractor Vs. the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR1132
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, and the question that arises for our determination is as to who is primarily liable under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to pay property-tax when land has, been leased to a tenant and the tenant has put up a structure upon that land.2. The facts giving rise to this reference are very few and they are that the appellant, who is the landlord, let out an open plot of land to one Kanse for a period of one year from April 1, 1949, to March 81, 1950, on a monthly rent of Rs. 140 and the tenant constructed upon this plot a temporary asbestos shed. The Bombay Municipality treated the land and the shed as a single assessable unit and fixed the combined rateable value at Rs. 5,500 for the assessment period October 1, 1953, to March 81, 1954. After the rateable value was fixed, a bill was presented to the appellant on the basis of this assessment and the appellant filed the appeal before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›