Mumbai Court February 1914 Judgments
In Re: the Pioneer Bank Limited ; in Re: Chainrai Veleram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom190; (1914)16BOMLR508; 25Ind.Cas.264
Macleod, J.1. This petition was presented on the 29th of November 1913, under the Indian Companies Act, VI of 1882, praying that the Pioneer Bank should be wound up. It came on for hearing before me on the 17th of January and I adjourned it in order to enable the shareholders of the Bank to meet and ascertain whether they should continue the business or pass a resolution for the voluntary winding up of the Bank. The shareholders have now decided to continue the business and therefore the petition stands dismissed for this reason that it does not comply with the provisions of Section 131 of the Indian Companies Act which states that the petition must allege facts which, if proved, will justify an order for winding up the Company. Section 128 enacts the circumstances under which a company may be wound up by the Court:-(a) Whenever the Company has passed a special resolution requiring the Company to be wound up by the Court;(b) Whenever the Company does not commence its business within a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Companies Act Vi of 1882
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom16
Macleod, J.1. This petition was presented on the 29th of November 1913, under the Indian Companies Act, VI of 1882, praying that the Pioneer Bank should be wound up. It came on for hearing before me on the 17th of January and I adjourned it in order to enable the shareholders of the Bank to meet and ascertain whether they should continue the business or pass a resolution for the voluntary winding-up of the Bank. The shareholders have now decided to continue the business and therefore the petition stands dismissed for this reason that it does not comply with the provisions of Section 131 of the Indian Companies Act, which states that the petition must allege facts which, if proved, will justify an order for winding-up the company. Section 128 enacts the, circumstances under which a company may be wound up by the Court:(a) Whenever the company has passed a special resolution requiring the company to he wound up by the Court;(b) Whenever the company docs not commence its business within a...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Lachhminarayen Vs. Jwalaprasad Gayaprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom239; (1914)16BOMLR434; 13Ind.Cas.52
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 3000 with interest from the 10th June 1912 under the following circumstances :-2. On the 10th June the 1st defendant received from the second defendant a hundi for Rs. 3000 purporting to be drawn by one Ramlal Ramprasad in favour of the 2nd defendant on the plaintiffs payable at sight to a Shah.3. The hundi is Ex. C. Over an one anna stamp at the top is written 'hundi is sent for collection by Manilal Gayaprasad (2nd defendant) to Bhai Jwalaprasad Gayaprasad (1st defendant). There had been dealings to a conciderable extent between 1st and 2nd defendants. The hundi was presented the same day to the plaintiffs but, as they had received no advice regarding it, payment was refused.4. On the 11th June the plaintiffs received a letter, Ex. A, purporting to be written from Harpalpur by one Ramlal Ramprasad enclosing a railway receipt for 300 bags linseed which was to be sold at a profit. Notice was given that two ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Annaji Deshpande and Vs. Vasudev Janardhan Satbhai and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom134; (1914)16BOMLR283
Shah, J. 1. Two points of law have been urged in these second appeals, firstly that a full sister is a nearer heir than a son of a separated half-brother according to Hindu law, and secondly that the question of heirship is res judicata in favour of the sisters.2. As regards the first point, the competition is between the full sisters of the deceased Bhagwan and the son of his separated half-brother. The parties are admittedly governed by the Mitakshara and not by the Mayukha. The sister has been recognised as an heir under the Mitakshara by this Court in several cases, and it is beyond dispute that she is an heir under the Mayukha. The dispute really is about the position to be given to her in the list of heirs according to the Mitakshara.3. This identical question has been fully considered and decided in Bhagwan v. Warubaib : (1908)10BOMLR389 . We are bound by this decision, and in spite of an attempt made by the learned pleader for the appellant to question its correctness, I see no...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Ramchandra Vs. Nathoo Keshav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom180; (1914)16BOMLR454
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The material facts are stated by the appellate Judge as follows:- ' The lease provided that on the defendants' failure to pay the rent the plaintiff should be entitled to take possession of the lands. Defendants having failed to pay the rent of the two years in question the plaintiff sued them in 1909 for possession and obtained a decree which directed that on the defendants' default to pay all the arrears of rent and costs within three months the plaintiff should take possession of the lands and recover his costs from them. See Exhibit 19, It is admitted that the defendants did not pay the rent and costs and that consequently the plaintiff took possession of the lands. In the said suit the plaintiff asked for permission to bring a separate suit for the rent of the two years in question, but none was given to him. The question therefore is whether the present suit is barred under Civil Procedure Code, Order ii, Rule 2. I think it is clearly barred.'2. In our op...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Raja and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom21; 24Ind.Cas.164
Heaton, J.1. It appears that two accused persons, who have been tried by the second class Magistrate of Hansot, asked that Magistrate during the course of the trial to make two witnesses, who had given evidence in the case, into co-accused persons with them. The Magistrate declined to do so, whereupon they (the accused persons) appealed or applied to the District Magistrate.2. To begin with, I do not know of any power given to a District Magistrate by the Code of the Criminal Procedure which would enable him to interfere in the matter (by way of appeal or revision). However, he did interfere and this is the order he made : If the case was sent up by the Police (it does not seem that it was) they should be directed to send up a complaint against the two witnesses also. 'I pause here, because I see no objection to this part of the order if it was made by the District Magistrate acting as a Police officer. But I do see an objection to it if it was made by him as a Magistrate. The order th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shinvar Birsha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom179(1); (1914)16BOMLR203
1. We can deal with these two references together. In each case the penalty is a fine of Rs. 100 and in each case the District Magistrate thinks that the penalty is insufficient for the offence.2. We quite agree that the penalty does appear to be insufficient. The offence is represented to be one that is frequently committed and seldom discovered, or rather it is seldom that a conviction can be obtained against the offender. In one case, however, of the same kind (Reference No. 102 of 1913), we have made an example of the convicted person by sentencing him to a substantial term of imprisonment. In that case the fine was only Rs. 30 as against Rs. 100, in each of the present cases. Bearing that in mind and in the hope that the one case in which we have made an example will serve as a warning, we refrain from enhancing sentences in these two cases.3. We must again call attention to a matter which in other cases we have mentioned already and it is this. It is very undesirable to trust exc...
Tag this Judgment!Roopchand Rangildas Vs. Haji HusseIn Haji Mahomed Soudagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom31; (1914)16BOMLR204; 24Ind.Cas.437
Beaman, J.1. The first question to be answered is, whether Rule 107 of the High Court Rules falls under Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act. Reading Sections 129 and 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure together, I think that that question must be answered in the affirmative. Noting a judgment of Robertson, J. in Baluram Ramkissen v. Bai Pannabaii I.L.R (1910) Bom 213. I may incidentally remark that in none of the cases commented on by that learned Judge was Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 referred to, for the obvious reason that it had no application. It could only apply cases of the kind arising after 1897 and under the new Code of Civil Procedure.2. Applying that section now it is also clear that it provides that service shall be deemed to have been effected (in appropriate cases of which this is one) by the posting of the document in a duly prepaid and registered, &c.; &c;, and that the date of such service shall, unless the contrary be proved, be deemed to be when the ...
Tag this Judgment!King King and Co. Vs. Major Francis D. Davidson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom137; (1914)16BOMLR233
Macleod, J.1. Messrs. King King & Co. obtained a decree against Major Davidson, then a Captain in the Indian Army, in Suit No. 303 of 1911 on the 25th of July 1911 for a sum of Rs. 4,454-15-3 and costs and further interest. In execution of the said decree the plaintiffs attached a moiety of defendant's pay, and in pursuance of such attachment the Deputy Controller of Military Accounts remitted to the Sheriff such moiety. Thereafter Amarchand Hajarimal & Co., who had obtained a decree against the same defendant in Suit No. 290 of 1907 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona, transmitted their decree to this Court for execution, and applied for rateable distribution between themselves and Messrs. King, King & Co., under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code. Rs. 2384-2-11 paid to the Sheriff as aforesaid have been rateably distributed between the two execution plaintiffs. There is now in the hands of the Sheriff the further sum of Rs. 2979-12-7, which in the ordinary ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jiva Natha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR138
Heaton, J.1. The applicants were called on to give security under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code and afterwards an order was made under Section 118. We are not now concerned with the order so far as it requires security beyond this that we see no ground to interfere in that matter. But the sureties were required to fulfil two conditions: first, that they should be of the land holding class, and' to that we see no objection secondly, that they should be able to control the persons for whom they were sureties. To that condition I do see objection-not a theoretical objection, because it is true that underlying the idea of a surety is the idea that he should be able in some way to control the person for whom he stands surety. The objection is a practical one. If this condition is expressly described in such terms as were adopted in this case, it is likely to lead to very serious hardship, e. g., those persons, who prima facie would most probably be able to control another, are ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »