Mumbai Court December 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.
Natha Hira and anr. Vs. Janardhan Ramchandra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom503
1. We think that the transaction of the 8th December 1872 amounted to the substitution of a new contract for that contained in the promissory note of 14th April 1870, under which new contract the plaintiff's, in consideration of a payment of interest in advance up to the 1st April 1873, agreed to defer their demand for the principal, and to forbear to sue until that day. Hence the period of limitation must be reckoned from that day, and the suit, having been brought on the 27th March 1876, is not barred. The verdict, therefore, should stand....
Hearn and ors. Vs. Bapu Saju Naikin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom505
1. Let the decree for the plaintiffs by the Court of Small Causes stand. The costs of this reference must be paid by the defendant....
Haji Jakaria Vs. Haji Casim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom496
Charles Sargent, J.1. The question is whether production is to be ordered of certain documents, and especially of the partnership books belonging to the firm of Ibrahim Kadu and Co., for the purpose of being inspected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that he was a partner in that firm, and that a sum of money was caused to be carried to his separate account in the books of that firm. The objection to their production is that the defendant is not the only person interested in the books in question, but that the other partners in the firm of Ibrahim Kadu and Co., who are not parties to this suit, and who are not shown to consent to the production of the books, are also interested in them. The books are at present in the possession of the Master in Equity, an officer of this Court, and the question is,--Will the Court order their production? Now there appears to be no settled practice in cases of this nature--it is advisable, therefore, to consider the English authorities.2. The ru...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›