Mumbai Court November 1906 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.
Goswami Sri Ghanshiam Lalji Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought upon six hundis drawn, by the defendant (appellant) upon himself in favour of the plaintiff (respondent). The hundis were silent as to interest; but there was a collateral agreement, embodied in written documents, that the hundis should bear interest at a rate equivalent to 30 per cent per annum. And it has been held that the dealing with interest by a collateral agreement, and not on the face of the hundis, was in accordance with the custom prevailing in the district, and amongst the class, affected by this suit.2. The contention of the appellant was that, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties, the respondent's right to interest was restricted to six per cent by Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; XXVI of 1881. Both the Courts in India rejected this contention, and their Lordships think rightly.3. The section says:-When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount du...
Nawab Shah Ara Begam Vs. Nanhi Begam Alias Roshan Jehan Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR80
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This appeal raises a single question of fact, upon which the Courts in India have differed. The suit was brought on the 29th August 1896 and the object of the suit was to recover the share to which the plaintiff (the first respondent) claimed to be entitled in the estate of her father Darogha Mis Wajid Ali, a Mahomedan of the Shiah sect. Her title was disputed upon many grounds not now in question. The only controversy left is as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. It was undoubtedly barred unless the plaintiff is entitled to the extension of time allowed by Section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The plaintiff during her minority was under the guardianship of her mother, whereby the period of minority was extended; to twenty-one years; and the section just referred to gave her three years from the date at which she attained her full age, within which to bring her suit. The question therefore is whether she has shown by sufficiently trustworthy evide...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›