Mumbai Court July 1888 Judgments
In Re: Hanmapa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom281
1. The conveyance (Exhibit A)and the written assent by Ramapa are employed by the parties to the sale to complete the transaction. Whether Ramapa's assent was necessary, might be a difficult question of law and fact. But the partie must be deemed to have considered it was necessary and therefore to have employed the conveyance and assent to complete the transaction as contemplated by Section 6 of the Stamp Act; and as they are 'several' instruments, of which the conveyance is the principal one, the case falls under Section 6, and the assent by Ramapa if written on a separate piece of paper would, therefore, require a one-rupee stamp. But as it has been written on the same piece of paper as the conveyance, it would appears from Section 13 that the Collector ought to refuse to stamp it.2. Exhibit B is not an instrument conferring an authority to adopt, and is not, therefore, chargeable under Article 38 of Schedule I of the Act or under any other article of the Act--In the matter of Ambai...
Tag this Judgment!Nusservanji Jehangir Khambata Vs. Volkart Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom15
Scott, J.1. The facts of this case are m follows: Messrs. Volkart entered into two contracts to supply the plaintiff, a coal merchant in Bombay, with 500 tons of coal in lots of 400 and 100 tons respectively. The contracts were in writing, and their terms were identical. The coal was to be 'South Hutton Double screened Smithy Nuts,' at Rs. 16-14 per ton, and the delivery was to be 'per steamer July-August shipment into purchaser's boats alongside.' The last clause of the contract runs as follows: 'In the event of the ship being lost, this contract to be null and void.' From the evidence of Mr. Ward or Messrs. Killick, Nixon & Co., this is the ordinary form used in Bombay for coal shipment contracts. The vendor undertakes to deliver the goods in the ordinary course of navigation, but protects himself from any obligation to deliver if that ordinary coarse is interrupted by the loss of the ship on which he has put the goods.2. A commission was issued at the instance of the defendants, and...
Tag this Judgment!Karmali Rahimbhoy and ors. Vs. Rahimbhoy Habibbhoy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom137
Scott, J.1. This is an application in Suit No. 370 of 1870 in the form of a rule to set aside all proceedings in that suit subsequent to the month of August, 1876.2. One Rahimbboy Dharamsey had filed a suit for himself and his children against Ahmedbhoy and Rahimbhoy Habibbhoy, the executors of the will, dated 4th September, 1864, of their brother Khan Mahomed Habibbhoy, for payment of the arrears of a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000 to the plaintiff's children, to whose mother, Lillbai, that allowance had been given by the will. In 1871 the suit was referred to the Commissioner for an account of the defendant's administration of the estate. In February, 1874, the defendants filed eight accounts in accordance with the decretal order of the Court, and in June, 1874, objections and surcharges were filed amounting to five lakhs.3. The father and original plaintiff died in November, 1875, and on the 4th April, 1876, his mother Kajbai was appointed guardian ad litem to his infant children. T...
Tag this Judgment!Waghela Raisangji Shivsangji Vs. Shaik MasludIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom330
Birdwood, J.1. The opponents, after obtaining in the High Court a decree against the applicant for a sum of money to be paid out of the rents and profits of the applicant's talukdari estate for certain years prior to their suit, brought a second suit in 1883 against the applicant to recover on the same cause of action a further sum of money out of the rents and profits of the same estate for certain subsequent years. This second suit was not contested; and the District Judge passed a decree in favour of the opponents in April, 1883, solely on the strength of the decree of the High Court in the first suit. The opponents took out execution; and, to prevent the sale of his lands, the applicant deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 14,877-7-3. He asked, however, that the money should be held in deposit pending the result of an appeal he had presented to Her Majesty in Council against the decree of the High Court in the first suit. The District Judge appears to have granted this application; fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad Nyamtula Vs. Nana Valad Faridsha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom424
Birdwood, J.1. We are of opinion that the lower Costs have rightly held that the time occupied by the plaintiff in proceedings before a conciliator who had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between him and the defendant cannot be excluded under Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act XVII of 1879, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the present suit by Article 144 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, 1877: for, under Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, it is only the period intervening between the application made by the plaintiff under Section 39 and the grant of the certificate under Section 46 which can be so excluded and under Section 89, the conciliator to whom application is to be made, must be the one appointed for the local area in which the agriculturist is residing. In the present case the plaintiff applied to, and obtained a certificate from, the conciliator appointed for the local area in which the land in dispute is s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ambai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom280
1. We concur with the Commissioner, C.D....
Tag this Judgment!Naro Balvant Vs. Ramchandra Tukdev and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom326
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sued in 1883 to redeem from the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 an alleged mortgage of the land now in suit. He said in the plaint that it was likely that the mortgage-debt had been more than paid off, and he asked that an account should be taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act (XVII of 1879), and possession of the land awarded to him. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 denied the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit of 1883, held that it was not maintainable, the alleged mortgage not having been established as against the defendants Nos. 2 to 6. He refused to allow the plaintiff to change the suit to one in ejectment. The present suit has, therefore, now been brought as an ejectment suit, and the lower appellate Court has held it to be barred by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882), on the ground that, if the plaintiff had discharged the mortgage-debt when he brought the former suit, he was then entitled to sue in ejectment, a...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Dhunji Vs. Gulam HuseIn Vazeer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom12
Jardine, J.1. The matter for decision is one of general importance to suitors whose cases appear on the daily lists. One of the plaintiffs applies, under Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, for an order to set aside a dismissal under Section 102. The applicant has filed three affidavits. Assuming, as I do, that the facts therein stated are true, I have to determine whether he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.' He was in the court-house on the appointed day, and waited for some time, as the Judge happened to be sitting on the appellate side. Then, thinking that a part-heard case standing above his suit on the list would take up time, he left the court-house and went to against his employer, who had sent a messenger to call him to explain some part of some mercantile transaction. When the applicant returned in about half an hour, he found that his suit had been called on for hearing and dismissed. It is the practice of my C...
Tag this Judgment!Khubchand Vs. Beram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom150
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The District Judge found that the bonds sued on were void, on the ground that the loan 'was intended to further an immoral purpose and was known by both parties to be so intended.' In the bonds the money is said to have been borrowed for teaching Beram's daughters to sing and for defraying household expenses, and the District Judge has held that the object of teaching Beram's daughter to sing was to make them more attractive as prostitutes, and, therefore, to further an immoral purpose, which could not be separated from the legal part of the purpose for which the loan was contracted.2. The cases of Cannan v. Bryce 3 B.& Ald. . 179 and M'Kinnell v. Robinson 3 M.& W. p. 434 are authorities for the legal proposition upon which the District Judge's conclusion is based, viz., that 'the repayment of money lent for the express purpose of accomplishing an illegal object cannot be enforced.' But the question yet remains, whether the fact of the immoral purpose and of the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bombay Electrical Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom1
Scott, J.1. I have found this a case of considerable difficulty, as there is no decision exactly in point. The Bombay Electrical Company went into liquidation on the 22nd July 1886, and the Official Liquidator notified on the 26th August 1887 to the defendant, Nusservanji Dadabhoy Katruck, that he was placed on the list of contributories. The circumstances under which he was placed on the list were as follows: He signed a duplicate of the memorandum of association for two shares on the 23rd March 1885, and for three shares on the 22nd June 1885. This was after the registration of the company, which took place on the 5th March 1885. There was no allotment of shares, nor does it appear that the defendant was placed on the register as holder of live unpaid shares. On the other hand, there was no with drawal or cancellation on the part of the defendant. His signature remained unrecalled up to the date of liquidation, and he has never paid for these five shares. Meanwhile, on the 24th Augus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »