Mumbai Court December 1907 Judgments
Haji Sajan Lalji Vs. N.C. Macleod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR178
Batchelor, J.1. The suit in which this appeal is brought was instituted by Mr. N. C. Macleod as Official Assignee of Hasambhai Visram, Hajibhai Visram, and Fazulbhai Visratn, who had traded under the name and firm of Messrs. Visram Ebrahim & Company. The object of the suit was to recover a considerable sum of money alleged to be due by the defendant to the insolvents' firm in respect of certain business dealings. In the Court below preliminary issues were raised as to whether the plaintiff was entitled (a) to file, and (b) to maintain the suit. These issues the learned Judge decided in the plaintiff's favour, and from that decision the defendant now appeals. The broad ground upon which the appeal is brought is that the plaintiff as Official Assignee became funetus officio and that the property of the insolvents revested in them either before the institution, or during the pendency, of the suit; and for the better understanding of the points in controversy it is necessary to set out cer...
Tag this Judgment!Munchakam Pitamber Vs. Regina Stanger
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR318
Russell, J.1. This ease to my mind raises an interesting question of law, upon which I have been unable to find any direct authority.2. The suit relates to a certain house and the furniture therein situated at Arthur Road, and the plaintiff is according to himself a milliner and dress-maker in Falkland Road, and a Baniah. By caste; and apparently for sometime past he had been minded to add to the gams of his millinery shop by keeping a brothel, as he very frankly admits.3. The defendant is a Jewish lady of quality, and apparently this is the first transaction which she has had with the plaintiff. 4. It appears that the house in question is the property of a firm in Bombay and by an indenture of lease dated the 1st April 1906, made between that firm and the plaintiff, the firm let to the plaintiff this bungalow at Rs. 300 a month for two years. But the plaintiff did not obtain possession of the bungalow until the 10th of July 1906. If I may misapply an expression derived from the Roman ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Ruttonbai Vs. the Fraser Ice Factory Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR203
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This suit arises out of a mortgage-deed dated the 30th of January 1907 and made between the defendant Company of the first part, the defendant Dayal Mulji of the second part, and the plaintiff of the third part in pursuance of an agreement of the 26th May 1906. The consideration for this mortgage-deed was a sum of Rs. 1,00, 000 paid by the plaintiff to the Company and a further sum of Rs. 85,000 credited to it by the plaintiff in her books of account. The Company by this deed covenanted with the plaintiff to pay her on the 31st day of December 1917 the sum of Rs. 1,85,000 and in the meantime to pay interest at the rate of 71/2 percent per annum, and in order to secure repayment of the sum advanced or to be advanced with interest the Company by the mortgage-deed demised to the plaintiff for the term of years expressed therein the premises therein described. The Company did also by the mortgage-deed charge with the payment of the mortgage debt the uncalled capita...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Jubilee S. and M. Co. Vs. Chhotalal Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR141
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiff sued for an account of the commission due to him from the defendant Company, and for the recovery of the sum which might be so found due.2. The suit was dismissed in the first Court but on appeal the decree was reversed, and a decree passed in the plaintiffs favour.3. The defendant Company now appeals.4. The suit is based upon contract and the first question which arises is whether there was ever any contractual relation between the plaintiff and the Company. To make out the affirmative the plaintiff relies upon the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. But these documents embody only the social contract, as it has been called, i. e., a contract between the share-holders inter se, and possibly between the share-holders and the directors, and do not constitute any contract between the Company and its promoters under one of whom the plaintiff now claims: Eley v. Positive Government Security Life Assurance Company. (1876) 1 Ex. D. 885. The su...
Tag this Judgment!Hookamchand Sarupchand Vs. Nowroji Sorabji Talati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR345
Beaman, J.1. It appears to me that Section 49 of the Insolvent Debtors Act clearly provides for, and is intended to empower the Court to deal with, two classes of cases, (1) cases in which a decree has, and (2) cases in which a suit has been instituted but a decree has not, been passed. In the former case, the Court may stay the execution; in the latter case the Court may stay further proceedings in the suit. It is contended that while the Court always has exercised the power of staying execution of a decree, it never has exercised the power of staying further proceedings. No reason whatever is assigned for this alleged practice: a practice I may observe that renders entirely nugatory one half at least of the contemplated scope of the section. The word 'may ' being used, it was argued that in both classes of cases, the Court had a discretion, which while in the one it uniformly exercised, in the other it has uniformly renounced. I cannot bring myself to believe that this conforms with ...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Vinayak Vs. Nagappa Subraya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR89
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree whereby it was directed that Rs. 90 and a sum of Rs. 11-5-3 as costs be recovered against Nagappa, the present respondent, and Rs. 30 with Rs. 3-12-4 as costs against Anant, the present appellant.2. The appellant Anant has taken a transfer of the decree by assignment in writing and he has applied for execution of this decree against Nagappa to the extent of the Rs. 90 and the Rs. 11-5-3.3. His application has been rejected on the ground that, it comes within Clause (5) to Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That clause provides that 'where a decree for money against several persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others'.4. Now the purpose of that clause was, not to deprive the transferee of a decree who might happen to be one of the judgment-debtors, of all relief, but to impose upon him the duty of proceeding by what was considered a more appropria...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dhanjibhoy Bomanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR701
Macleod, J.1. By a declaration, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated the 13th December 1904, and published in the Bombay Government Gazette of the 15th December 1904, the Local Government notified its intention to acquire certain plots of land in Mazagon at the expense of the Trustees of the Port of Bombay for the construction of a proposed Railway. Two of the plots referred to belonged to one Dhunjibhoy Bomanji, to whom the Collector awarded Rs. 2,64,702-10-2 as compensation inclusive of the 15 per cent, for compulsory acquisition. Dhunjibhoy dissatisfied with the award requested the Collector to refer C the matter to the Court. The two plots dealt with by the Collector under cases Nos. 31 and 33 respectively are shown on the plan Exhibit 27, and for the purposes of my valuation have been admitted to admeasure 21,500 and 381 square yards respectively. They are situated in the centre of a portion of the Mazagon district which is bounded by Bhandarwada Hill on the west, Do...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Taylor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR38
Chandavarkar, J.1. The two questions of law referred to this Court by the learned second Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, are as follows :-(1). Does the person who sends a notice under Section 14 prima facia become the occupier of a factory and does the burden of proving that he is not one he on him?(2). If he becomes the occupier, then does any other person who succeeds him in the same office also become the occupier unless and until he discharges the same burden.2. As to the first question, the substance and import of Section 14 merely are that the occupier of a factory shall send the notice prescribed within one month after his occupation has commenced. If any individual sends such a notice, that is evidence or a representation by him that he is the occupier; but there is nothing in the Act which make it necessaray conclusive evidence. The Court may treat the evidence of the notice as sufficient to discharge the onus of proof lying on the prosecution at the outset and to shift the bur...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Pramada Nath Roy Vs. Raja Ramani Kanta Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR66
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This appeal raises a question upon the construction and effect of the Bengal Tenancy Act, a short question, but one which may be of considerable importance wherever that Act applies.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute, and are simple. In the year 1837 the then owner of the zemindari interest in an 8 annas share in Dihi Haloti created a putni tenure in those 8 annas in favour of one Abbott, at a rent reserved. The zemindari and the putni interests both underwent subsequent devolutions, and at the 'time which is now'material, the present plaintis (appellant) held 6 annas of the zemindari interest, respondents 14 and 15 held one anna, and respondents 2, 3, and 16one anna. The putni aterest was held by the remaining respondents, and also by respondent 16. The last-mentioned, therefore, was interested both in the zemindari and in the putni. The putni rent fell into arrear so far as the share which should have come to the appellant was concerned.3. The appellant t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manekji Pestonji Talati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR84
Russell, J.1. In this case M.P. Talati, who is residing in Shanghai, China, has presented a petition to this Court to have the benefit of the Act. He lately carried on business in Bombay, Hongkong, Shanghai with his partners, N.S. Talati, D.S. Talati and Hajarimull Mooltanchand. His petition is attested by His Britannic Majesty's Vice-Consul at Shanghai.2. The petitioner's partners who are resident within the jurisdiction of this Court had previously filed their petition.3. The Clerk of the Court refused to accept the petition without an order of the Court upon the ground that the petitioner must either be in prison or within the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 5 of the Act.4. Mr. Strangman for the petitioner appeared and argued that the Clerk of the Court has taken a wrong view.5. The important words of Section 5 are : 'Any person who shall reside within the jurisdiction of any of the Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras or Bombay and...shall be in insolvent circumstances may at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »