Mumbai Court October 1876 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.
Anandji Visram Vs. the Nariad Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom320
Michael Sargent, J.1. The plaintiffs are a Joint-Stock Company incorporated under Act X of 1866, and seek to recover from the defendant, as the registered holder of 4 shares in the Company, the sum of Rs. 2,000 with interest, being the amount of two calls on the above shares. The defence set up is that the defendant is not a member of the Company, and that his name has been improperly placed on the register. There is but little (if any) dispute between the parties as to the circumstances under which the defendant became connected with the plaintiffs' Company. It appears from the evidence of Javerilal Umiashanker, one of the promoters of the Company, that he and his co-promoter prepared a Memorandum of Association, Exhibit A in this suit, and that some short time before the registration of the Company, which took place on 24th October 1874, he went to the defendant's place of business, and after stating to his Munim Kallianji Hansraj, the objects of the Company, and reading to him the s...
Baban Mayacha and ors. Vs. Nagu Shravucha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Bom19
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the District Judge of Thana The appellants (plaintiffs below) allege in their plaint that they and the respondents are fishermen; that, in accordance with the custom of their trade, they have been for years erecting their fishing stakes annually opposite to the village of Yerangal, at a distance of between two and three miles from the coast, those of the respondents being to the north of, and about 600 feet distant from, their own; that in the month of March 1872, the respondents, in addition to their customary stakes to the north, maliciously and wrongfully erected other fishing stakes to the south, at a distance of only 120 feet from those of the appellants, and that thereby they wrongfully disturbed the latter in the enjoyment of their right to fish, and unjustifiably prevented fish from getting into their nets, thus causing them considerable pecuniary loss. They, therefore, claim from the respondents Rs. 3,000 as damage...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›