Mumbai Court September 1887 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.
Datubhai Ebrahim Vs. Abubaker Moledina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom242
Farran, J. 1. In this case there is really no dispute about the facts. The defendant in December of last year agreed to borrow from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 20,000 for three years at 7 1/2 per cent, per annum. The agreement was as follows: (His Lordship read the agreement.) It is clear that the plaintiff cannot get specific performance of that agreement. The only question is with respect to damages Now, the effect of the first and last clauses of that agreement would seem to be that the defendant stipulates to pay interest on the whole amount if he does not borrow the money; that is, that, in the event of a breach of the agreement the amount thus ascertained is to be paid by him to the plaintiff, The case is, therefore, one to which Section 74 of the Contract Act is to be applied. (His Lordship read the section.) By that section, then, the Court is bound to give to the plaintiff the damages which he can prove to have been sustained by him. I, therefore, have to inquire what damages h...
Mohanlal Raichand Vs. Vira Punja and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom169
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. Both Courts had jurisdiction to try the cause-the Small Cause Court of the cantonment, because the cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction; and the Small Cause Court of the City, because the defendant resided there: but the former, whose jurisdiction only extends to Rs. 200, whilst that of the latter extends to Rs. 500, must, we think, be regarded as the Court of lower grade, and, therefore, under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), the proper Court to try the suit. See Dwarkanath Dutt v. Bhathu Hawoldar 22 Cal, W.R. C. R 457....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›