Mumbai Court February 1889 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.
Dhondbhat Narharbhat Vs. Atmaram Moreshvar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom669
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The document in the present case is not an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money, but only a request to borrow on certain conditions. It constituted a proposal under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act.2. It is not, in our opinion, liable to stamp duty....
In Re: Bombay Saw Mills Company Limited and Co.'s
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom314
Scott, J.1. The claim of Messrs. Ewart, Latham & Co. is set out in the affidavit of Mr. Greaves, partner in the firm, dated the 17th January last, and raises a question of considerable commercial importance. He says that his firm was, at the time of the liquidation of the company and for several years previously, agents of the company, and in possession, as agents, of goods, papers, and other property of the company, both moveable and immoveable; that as agents they have made advances and disbursements, and incurred expenses on behalf of the company in conducting the business, or for the purposes of the business. In a previous affidavit (August 27), he states that in excess of the money they have advanced, they (the agents) gave their personal guarantee, as such, in order to enable the concern to borrow money which was urgently required for the purpose of the company. All the advances made by the firm, and all the guarantees given by the firm, he says, were made with the sanction of th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›