Mumbai Court September 1888 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.
Yeknath and ors. Vs. Warubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom285
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of a house in Pandharpur and a share in the vritti of the temple of Vithoba at Pandharpur to which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled on the death of her mother in 1866. The important question in the case is whether the suit is barred.2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was born in August, 1858; and it is contended for the defendant that she came of age in August, 1874, on attaining the age of sixteen, and that the suit, not having been brought till 1880, is, therefore, barred. On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that the Majority Act IX of 1875 was applicable, and that consequently she did not come of age till she was twenty-one, i.e., till 1879, and by the Limitation Act XV of 1877 the suit would not be barred before 1882.3. The third section of the Majority Act makes it applicable, subject to the provisions of Section 2, to 'every minor of whose person or property a guardian has been or shall be appointed by a...
In Re: the Bombay Electrical Company (Limited) Elmore's Case
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom57
Scott, J.1. In this case Mr. Elmore subscribed the memorandum of association of the Electric Light Company for one share. The rule of law in such a case is that 'a man who signs the memorandum of association agrees to become a shareholder, and so long as there are shares that can be allotted to him he must fulfil that obligation'--per Jessel, M.R.,; Drummond's Case 7 Ch. App. At p. 780.2. But Mr. Russell argued (a) that the special circumstances took this case out of the general rule, and (b) that the company had no shares available for allotment. As regards the first point, I do not think the transactions between Mr. Elmore and Mr. Premchand Roychand in any way bind or affect the company. The present of a paid-up share by a third party does not satisfy the obligation of a subscriber of the memorandum. The issue of the certificate does not estop the company as long as the certificate has not passed to a bond-fide transferee for value. If Mr. Elmore has not, in fact, paid money or money...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›