Mumbai Court June 1889 Judgments
Mahomedally Ebrahim Pirkhan Vs. Schiller, Dosogne and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom470
Chareles Sargent, C.J.1. This reference from the Small Cause Court is one of considerable importance, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Mahomedally Ebrahim Pirkhan, against the defendants, who carry on trade in Bombay as merchants and commission agents under the style of Schiller, Dosogne & Company, and are a branch of a French firm, trading in Paris under the same name, who are agents for certain manufacturers of zinc, to recover damages 'on account of the defendants having failed to perform their contract for the delivery of 48 casks of zinc sheets.' The facts of the case as found by the Judge of the (Small Cause Court are, that plaintiff, on the 27th June 1887, ordered out a quantity of zinc sheets through the defendants' firm in Bombay by an indent in the following form: 'I hereby request you to instruct your agents to purchase for me (if possible) the under mentioned goods on my account and risk upon the terms stated below.' On 2nd August 1887, the plaintiff conse...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedbhoy Hubibbhoy Vs. Cassumbhoy Ahmedbhoy and Rahimbhoy Alladinbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom534
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Cassumbhoy Ahmedbhoy, of Bombay, against his father Ahmedbhoy Hubibbhoy, to establish his claim to a one-third share in the ancestral family property, which he alleges came to the latter on the death of his father, Hubibbhoy Ebrahim, under his last will and testament. The defendant by his written statement denied the allegation that the property came to his hands, as stated in the plaint, was ancestral property according to the laws and usages governing the Khoja community in Bombay, and, further, that the distinction, according to Hindu law, between ancestral and self-acquired property had any application to, or has ever been recognized, or acted on, by any Khojas in Bombay, and that plaintiff did not on birth, or at any time, become a co-parcener or sharer to any extent in the said property with the defendant. At the hearing, after the issue had been framed, a question was raised whether the plaintiff could conten...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ganesh Narayan Sasthe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom600
Scott, J.1. This was a complaint lodged in the District Magistrate's Court, at Poona, by one Ganesh Sathe against certain subordinate officials who had given evidence in the case of Empress v. Hammantrao and the complaint was grounded on the evidence given by them, the record of which was in the archives of the Magistrate's own Court. The complaint was dismissed by the District Magistrate, but the dismissal of the complaint was set aside by a Full Bench of the High Court. The High Court remanded the case for investigation, on the ground that the Magistrate had erred in allowing his decision to be influenced by consideration of the motives of the complainant. He ought, the Court said, to have confined himself to the consideration whether there was prime facie evidence of a criminal offence. The complaint on remand, came before another Magistrate and was again dismissed. The papers were once more sent for by the High Court, and have now come before this Division Court for disposal. After...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›