Mumbai Court March 1903 Judgments
The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Dorabji Cursetji Shr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom270
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. In October, 1902, this Bench dismissed a petition, presented under the Indian Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act (XII of 1895), on the ground that, no such resolution as the law requires has been passed. From this order the Company desires to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. In opposition to the application it was urged before us by Mr. Branson, first, that no appeal lay under the Memorandum of Association Act or under the Companies Act: secondly, that the pecuniary test had not been satisfied; and thirdly, that there was no substantial question of law.3. To the first of these objections the answer appears to me to be that if there has been a decree, then there, is a right of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, subject to the conditions thereby prescribed. Section 594 of the Code, which is in the chapter regulating appeals to the King in Council, provides that in that 'chapter, unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context, ...
Tag this Judgment!Khondiba BIn Babaji Vs. Nana Shidrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom265
Chandavarkar, J.1. The points of law involved in the second appeal turn upon certain facts which are not in dispute and which may be shortly stated.2. On the 16th of June, 1876, one Revapuri mortgaged the land in dispute to defendant No. 1, Bahirjirao bin Shidojirao. It was a mortgage with possession. The mortgagee, defendant No. 1, leased the land to defendant No. 2, Babaji. under a kabulayat for one year on the 26th of June, 1876.3. On the 3rd of December, 1878, when defendant No. 2 was in possession as a tenant of the mortgagee (defendant No. 1), the mortgagor, Revapuri, sold to defendant No. 2 her equity of redemption for Rs. 95. The deed of sale was not registered, not being compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act then in force. From that time up to the date of the present suit defendant No. 2 has continued in possession of the land.4. On the 8th of October, 1895, one Rampuri, an heir of Revapuri, sold the equity of redemption by a registered deed to the plaintiff, Shi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vallabhdas Jairam, Khimji Jairam and Bhanji Jairam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom256
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. Vallabhdas Jairam and Bhanji Jairam, the appellants in Appeal No 1261, and their brother, Khimji Jairam, having sought the benefit of the Act passed for the relief of Insolvent Debtors in India, their application for discharge was opposed, and on the 4th of February, 1903, an order was passed by the Commissioner in the following terms:For as much as it appears to this Honourable Court that the said insolvent Vallabhadas Jairam Thackar and Bhanji Jairam Thackar have fraudulently, with the intent to conceal the state of their affairs and to defeat the objects of this Act, willfully prevented and purposely with held the production of letters written to them by their, brother Bhanji Jairam, relating to such of their affairs as are subject to investigation under the Act whereby they have brought themselves within the meaning of Section 50 of Act 11 & 12 Vict., c. 21, this Honourable Court doth order and adjudge that the said insolvents Vallabhdas Jairam Thackar...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Piraji Marwadi Vs. Balwant Rao BIn Yeshwantrao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom253
Chandavarkar, JJ.1. We think that the lower Appellate Gourd has taken an erroneous view of the law in rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant derived his title during the plaintiff's minority from the mother of the latter acting as the de facto guardian of the minor. The sale-deed purports to deal with the property as the mother's and there is no mention whatever in it of the minor. The minor must, therefore, be taken to have been completely ignored and that at a time when the mother was not the guardian of the minor's property which was then vested in the Court under Bombay Act XX of 1864, and the Court had appointed one Suklal as guardian and administrator of it. In selling the property to the defendant the plaintiff's mother acted adversely to the minor and her act could not bind him. The sale, therefore, in favour of the defendant must be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property.2. But it is urged that the plaintiff cannot recover it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›