Mumbai Court June 1903 Judgments
Amarchand Lakhmaji and anr. Vs. Kila Morar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom391
1. The mortgage-bond in this case puts the mortgagee in possession of the mortgaged property, and authorizes him to retain possession until payment of the mortgage-money, the mortgagors being given credit for all profits recovered from the land over and above the Government assessment; so far it is a usufructuary mortgage within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 58, Transfer of Property Act.2. The deed also contains a personal covenant by the mortgagor to pay the mortgage-money and an implied agreement that in the event of non-payment the property shall be sold (the debt is to be recovered from the mortgaged land and from the persons and other property of the mortgagors). So far it is a simple mortgage within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 58, Transfer of Property Act.3. As such, the rights and liabilities of the parties should be determined as laid down in that section, by the contract as evidenced in the mortgage-deed, and, so far as such contract does not extend, by local u...
Tag this Judgment!A Shop Styled in the Name of Bakatram Nanuram by Its Owner Minalal Sha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom364
E.T. Candy, C.S.I., Acting C.J.1. In this case we need only deal with the question of limitation. The Subordinate Judge held that there was no bar of limitation because if the plaintiff had been sued on the bond, he could raise the pleas which are the foundation of his present suit, There are no authorities for such a proposition, and the learned Counsel for the plaintiff before us did not support it. But he contended that though the main prayer of the plaint (that the bond should be set aside) might be barred, still he was entitled to a declaration that the bond was void, and that for such a claim the period of limitation would be six years.2. We do not think that this contention is sound. The plaintiff seeks equitable relief under Section 39 of the Specific Belief Act and asks to have the bond adjudged void, and prays that the Court may in its discretion so adjudge it, and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. That was his prayer upon which the parties went to trial.3. To such a...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Shaligram Shet Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom388
E.T. Candy, C.S.I., Acting C.J.1. In this case we have no doubt that on the merits the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.2. In the first Court one of the defences was that the defendant's servant had no authority to divert the consignment and that therefore the defendant was not bound by the Act of the servant.3. In the District Court this defence was disallowed by the District Judge, who held that the Station Master at Kamptee was guility of default in directing the delivery of the goods to the original consignee but the District Judge further held that the defendant Company was not liable for the Act of the Station Master which was not within the scope of his authority (quoting Section 238 of the Contract Act).4. We are unable to agree with the applicability of this section. It seems to us that this is a simple cage of breach of contract; the defendant contracted to carry the goods and deliver them at Nargaon and failed to give such delivery to the plaintiff. The Station Master at K...
Tag this Judgment!Sidlingappa BIn Irappa and ors. Vs. Shankarappa BIn Karibasappa and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom361
E.T. Candy, C.S.I., Acting C.J.1. We think that the Subordinate Judge, First Class, was wrong in directing further orders to be made for execution as prayed for by the applicants.2. In Suit No. 486 of 1894 a decree was passed for the dissolution of a certain partnership consisting of four partners. The dissolution was declared to date from the 14th January, 1894, and a receiver was appointed with power to collect the assets and pay the debts of the firm which had been dissolved. In that case the decree of the Subordinate Judge, which was confirmed by the High Court, gave elaborate directions to the receiver as to how he was to act. By Clause 3 he was to take possession of the whole immoveable property belonging to the partnership, and on any partner pacing the price of one-fourth share in the same, he was to deliver such share into the possession of that partner. It has not been contended that any partner has paid his share. It was further provided by Clause 10 of the decree that in de...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jamsetji Cawasji Cama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom358
E.T. Candy, Acting C.J.1. It is necessary to pub forth the facts which have led be the present prosecution. The case is admittedly a test one, and the main question for cam consideration is whether the cocaine which is the subject-matter of the present case comes within the definition of 'intoxicating drug' as set forth in Section 3, Clause (9) of Bombay Act V of 1878.2. There were two lines of defence. One is under Section 62 which provides: 'Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act applies to the manufacture, sale or supply of any bona fide medicated article for medicinal purposes by medical practitioners, chemists, druggists, apothecaries or keepers of dispensaries; but it shall be lawful for Government at any time, by notification in the Bombay Government Gazette, to prohibit the sale of any such article within any defined local area or place except under a license from the Collector, which shall be granted on payment of such fees and subject to such conditions as Government...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›