Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1167; 76Ind.Cas.433
Marten, J.1. This is a notice of motion by Captain Yanovsky the caveator asking for an order that the decree made in Suit No. 1 of 1922 by my brother Crump on April 25, 1922, may be Bet aside, and that the sale made in pursuance of the said decree be also set aside. The notice of motion states that I have granted an interim injunction against completion of the sale until further order of the Court. That statement is admittedly 'incorrect and should be struck out. All I did was to give leave to serve short notice of motion for last Saturday.2. The suit itself is a curious one. The application is also a curious one : and it bristles with legal points-points which are of interest from an historical aspect and also on the question of our Admiralty Jurisdiction in this Court. It also carries with it points of interest to all of us in this High Court of Bombay, viz, that the various matters arising in the exercise of the Court's extensive jurisdiction should be carried out in a way which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom39; 79Ind.Cas.210
1. It is unfortunate that the hearing of this Rule has been delayed so long as the notice could not be served. The order of this Court was passed on the 12th August 1919 on Appeal No. 41 of 1917 and Civil Extraordinary Application No. 333 of 1917. The circumstances under which the decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the case sent back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh decree are stated in the judgment of this Court. Apart from the difficulty in the way of the applicants in getting a certificate under Section 110, arising out of the terms of Section 109 (a), we do not think that, under the special circumstances of this case, it would be right to grant the certificate applied for. But the difficulty which we have referred to 'seems to be insuperable. The order of this Court cannot be said to be a final order passed on appeal. The substantial portion of the order which the applicants complain of in their petition for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was really passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1923)25BOMLR908
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay on Section question referred to it under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918. The facts out of which the appeal has arisen are shortly as follows:-For the official year 1919-1920 the appellant Company was assessed by the Collector of Income Tax, on a sum of Rs. 61, 84, 848, alleged to be income earned in the previous year, 1918-1919. The Company claimed to deduct from this assessment a sum of 28 lacs of rupees, paid by it to certain underwriters on an issue of 7,00,000 preference shares of the Company of Rs. 100 each, as expenditure incurred by the Company for the purpose of making profits in its business. By Section 9, Sub-section 1, of this Act it was provided that the tax (i.e., the income tax ) shall be payable by an assessee under the head of 'Income derived from business, 'in respect of the profits of any business carried on by the taxpayer, and by Sub-section 2(ix), it is further provided 'tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom33; (1923)25BOMLR826; 76Ind.Cas.1014
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued as agriculturists for redemption of two mortgages after taking accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The first two issues were : (1) are the plaintiffs agriculturists? and (2) is any of the plaintiffs an agriculturist? On August 26, 1919, the Subordinate Judge gave findings on these two issues with the reasons. He held that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists at that time, but plaintiff No. 1 and his deceased brother were agriculturists when the mortgages in suit were passed and when the mortgage debt was incurred. On the same day he appointed two Karkuns as Commissioners to take accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and added that findings on the remaining issues would be recorded after the return of the commission. His findings on those issues are given in a judgment of April 8, 1920, when he passed orders for redemption in favour of the plaintiffs, fixing the amount payable, etc. The plaintiffs made an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom390; (1924)26BOMLR395
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the decision of the Division Court on November 23, 1921, refusing to excuse the delay of the applicants in the presentation of their petition for a certificate of appeal to the Privy Council. The learned Judges who constituted the Court disagreed as to whether the delay should be excused. Accordingly under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed, which was to the effect that the delay should not be excused. Consequently it became unnecessary to decide whether the certificate should be granted. I should state that one consolidated rule had been granted both in the above application to excuse delay and in the above petition for a certificate. They were respectively Civil Applications No. 615 of 1921 and No. 681 of of 1921, and both of them were before the Division Court Similarly the present appeal before us is headed in both the above applications, although that does not appear fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR243
Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR872
John Edge, J.1. This case has come before their lordships in the form of an appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of the High Court of Bombay. On March 31, 1920, the High Court certified that the appeal involved a substantial question of law and was otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council, and on July 26, 1920, the High Court admitted the appeal and ordered notice to be given to the respondents. The question which their lordships have to consider is whether the appeal lay. For that purpose it is necessary to refer as briefly as possible to the history of the case to see if any appeal in this case to His Majesty in Council arose or was admissible.2. The case relates to the management of a public Hindu temple at the village of Dakore which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, In the temple is installed the Idol of Shri Ranchhod Raiji, which is much revered by Hindus. Disputes arose as to the management of the temple and at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom485; (1925)27BOMLR973
Shah, Ag. C.J.1. It will be convenient in this case to state the few facts which have given rise to this appeal. The Divisional Forest Officer, Western Division, Thana, by a proclamation dated June 25. 1920, invited tenders with reference to certain forest coupes in the Thana District. The tenders were to be submitted on or before August 5, 1920, 1 P. M. The plaintiff submitted a tender in the standard form for several coupes, including coupe No. 4 in Block No. XIX before 1 P. M. on August 5. He offered to take up that particular coupe for Rs. 12,299. Immediately after, however, he discovered that he had committed a mistake in that the sum offered was not intended for that particular coupe but for coupe No. 5, which was near coupe No. 4. At 4-30 on that day the plaintiff's son sent a petition requesting the officer not to sanction the tender for coupe No. 4 as it was submitted under a mistake. The plaintiff 'and his son also sent a telegram' which reached the Divisional Forest Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR309; 94Ind.Cas.47
Fawcett, J.1. The facts out of which, this application arises have been fully stated in this Court's judgment of April 11, 1919, in Appeal No. 223 of 1915, and need not be re-stated. That judgment, and the consequential one of September 22, 1919, have been set aside under the judgment of their lordships in Privy Council Appeal No. 95 of 1923. In that judgment it is said:-' The High Court at Bombay had power conferred upon it by Clause 20 of the scheme confirmed by His Majesty's Order in Council upon an application made to it with that object to alter, modify or add to the rules sanctioned by the District Judge, but it had no other power, and that power it did not exercise; it may, however, still be exercised upon application properly made to it.' Accordingly the present application has been made by twelve Gors 'for themselves and on behalf of the other Tarwadi Mewada Gors, residing at Dakore.' Their main contention is that the rules framed by the Temple Committee and sanctioned by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1926Bom179
Fawcett, J.1. The facts out of which this application arises have been fully stated in this Court's judgment of April 11, 1919, in Appeal No. 223 of 1915, and need not be re-stated. That judgment, and the consequential one of September 22, 1919, have been set aside under the judgment of their Lordships in Privy Council in Appeal No. 95 of 1923. In that judgment it is said : 'The High Court at Bombay had power conferred upon it by Clause 20 of the scheme confirmed by His Majesty's Order in Council upon an application made to it with that object to alter, modify or add to the rules sanctioned by the District Judge, but it had no other power, and that power it did not exercise; it may, however, still be exercised upon application properly made to it.' Accordingly the present application has been made by twelve Gors 'for themselves and on behalf of the other Tarwadi Mewada Gors, residing at Dakore.' Their main contention is that the rules framed by the Temple Committee and sanctioned by th...
Tag this Judgment!