Mumbai Court October 1902 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.
In Re: Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom73
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The Burmah Trading Corporation, Limited, has presented a petition to this Court under the Indian Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1895, asking that an alteration in its 'Memorandum of Association, effected by special resolution, may be confirmed by the Court. As the learned Judge, to whom this class of business is ordinarily, assigned, is disqualified by interest from dealing with the petition, its hearing has been transferred to the present Bench.2. The petition is opposed both on its merits, and on the ground that the special resolution has not been passed according to law. Before the case can be dealt with on its merits considerable amplification of the evidence appears to us necessary, and though we are prepared to give the parties an opportunity under the circumstances to remedy this defect we have been asked in the first place to deal with the respondent's objection to the validity of the resolution. This accordingly we now propose to do.3. Though m...
Dhanram Ragho Vs. Ganpat Sadashiv and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1902
Reported in: (1927)ILR27Bom62
Crowe, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 3,300 due on a mortgage bond dated the 28th December, 1895. The contention of the defendant was that the mortgage deed was illegal under the provisions of Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance held that objection good and rejected the claim. The lower Appellate Court on the same ground, after referring to the reported cases, confirmed the decree of the lower Court and rejected the appeal.2. In the appeal before us the learned Advocate-General has pleaded that the mortgage bond was not an agreement for the satisfaction of the judgment-debt within the terms of Section 257A, and he has relied on the ruling of the learned Chief Justice in the case of Tukaram v. Anantbhat (1900) 25 Bom. 252. The present case can be distinguished from the case quoted above in one respect, namely, that in that case it was found that it was not an agreement to give time and that it did not provide for payment of any sum in excess of t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›