Mumbai Court March 1878 Judgments
Nursingdas Rughunathdas Vs. Tulsiram BIn Doulatram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom558
1. Under the provisions of Section 268, the bonds cannot be sold till the end of six months from the date of attachment.2. It follows that, as a Court of Small Causes cannot appoint a receiver, any bonds on which recovery will be time-barred before the date on which a sale can legally be made, cannot be made available for satisfaction of the judgment-creditor's debt.3. The Code on this respect appears to require amendment....
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Sobharam Vs. Purbhudas Kursandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom560
1. It is clear that Section 648 does not apply to a case in which the defendant resides within the same district in which the Court issuing a warrant is situate. 2. Section 223 does not apply to Courts of Small Causes.3. It follows that a Court of Small Causes may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person residing in another district, but not if he resides within the same district in which the Court is situate, but outside its local jurisdiction. This is an anomaly which appears to require the attention of the Legislature....
Tag this Judgment!Cassum Jooma Vs. Thucker Liladhur Kissowjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom570
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that this is the case of a tradesman's running account, and, therefore, falls within the authority of Grimbly v. Aykroyd (1 Ex. 479).2. Cassum Jooma, the creditor, appears, indeed, to have kept separate accounts, in the hope of being thereby enabled to split his demand, and to sue on each of them in the Court of Small Causes, and thus to frustrate the law which prohibits the splitting of a cause of action. We must decline to co-operate with him in attaining that object.3. Reverse the judgment of the Small Cause Court, and let a non-suit be entered.4. The plaintiffs must pay the costs of the suit and of this reference....
Tag this Judgment!Dalpatbhai Bhagubhai Vs. Amarsang Khemabhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom553
Melvill, J.1. This is an application of appeal against an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Kheda made subsequently to the date on which the new Code of Civil Procedure came into force, by which the Subordinate Judge determined two questions arising between the parties to a suit, viz., first, the amount of mesne profits which the plaintiff had recovered from certain mortgaged property subsequently to decree, and, secondly, the amount payable on account of the costs of execution. The final order of the Subordinate Judge was that, out of a sum of money deposited by the defendant, Rs. 8,476 should be paid to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of his decree, and the balance restored to the defendant.2. Against this order the plaintiff wishes to appeal, and the appeal was admitted provisionally, subject to any objection which the defendant might take to its admissibility under the provisions of the new Code.3. After hearing arguments on both sides, we have come to the conclusion...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Esmail Hajee Sidick and anr. Vs. Shamji Poonjani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom550
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We are of opinion that no total loss of the plaintiffs' goods has been shown; but that to recover in this action it is sufficient, inasmuch as the ship was lost by being stranded upon a rock, to establish a particular average loss. Whether we look to the oral evidence as to the commercial meaning attached in Bombay to the Gujarathi words importing 'without damage,' or to the true construction of the policy itself without the aid of such evidence, we must hold the defendant (respondent) to be responsible for a particular average loss. Except the testimony of the respondent himself (who was strongly biassed by his interest), and that of his one witness who--Mr. Justice Atkinson, it was admitted, said--was wholly undeserving of credit, the evidence was all in one direction, viz., that the ship having been stranded, the underwriters were, under such a policy as that sued upon here, liable for the damage, i.e., the particular average loss incurred. The plaintiffs' w...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa BIn Malappa Aki Vs. Dundaya BIn Shivlingaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom540
Melvill, J.1. This is a suit in ejectment, and, although the appellant, who was a defendant, may have no title, the plaintiff (the respondent) must recover on the strength of his own title. The plaintiff's title to the land is derived from the purchaser at a Court sale. The decree, under which the sale took place was reversed in appeal. The reversal took place subsequently to the sale but before the order was made confirming the sale. It is well established that, if a decree be reversed after a sale under it has become absolute, and a certificate has been granted to the purchaser, the title of the purchaser Is not affected by the reversal of the decree. But, in the present case, the decree was reversed while the sale was still incomplete; and from that moment the Court, which had made the decree, ceased to have jurisdiction to take any further steps to execute it. The Court, when it confirmed the sale, was probably not informed that its decree had been reversed, and the purchaser was p...
Tag this Judgment!Umedmal Motiram Vs. Davu BIn Dhondiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom547
Melvill, J.1. The plaintiff is the purchase, at a Court sale, of the right, title, and interest of one Pema, in a house.2. The house originally belonged to the defendant Davu, who executed the conveyance (exhibit 13) in favour of Pema. This instrument was delivered to and duly registered by Pema. Although it is distinctly stated in it that the purchase-money had been paid, and the house delivered to Pema, it has been found by the Courts below that the consideration was, in fact, not paid, nor the property delivered; but that, on the contrary, Pema, being unable to raise the purchase-money, returned the deed to Davu eleven days after it had been registered, and that thus (in the opinion of those Courts) the whole transaction of sale fell to the ground.3. All this took place before the attachment and sale of the house; and the question is, whether Pema, under the above circumstances, had any interest in the house at the date of the sale, or whether the property in the house remained in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›