Mumbai Court February 1915 Judgments
In Re: Gangaram Narayandas Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom49(2); (1915)17BOMLR320
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference to the Court under Section 59 of the Indian Stamp Act in the matter of a lease executed in favour of Gangaram Narayandas Teli by Vithoba valad Onkari Patel Vani, and the question, as stated in the reference, is whether in the case of a lease containing a stipulation regarding the payment by the lessee to the lessor of Government assessment, etc., for its eventual payment by the lessor to the Government, stamp duty should be calculated on the total amount of rent and Government assessment, etc. The stipulations in the lease are as follows :-The above described land has been taken from you for five years and has been given into my possession from the same date. I will take great pains for cultivating the land and one half portion of every kind of produce that may be raised will be given to you every year, and the remainder will be appropriated by me. I will pay you every year Rs. 16-8-0 on account of Government assessment which you may pay. I ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Bahadur Shivlal Moti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR455
George Farwell, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction reversing a judgment of the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The question at issue is one of fact. The respondent is a banker and money lender against whom personally no imputation is made; his manager was one Dani. Dani was on intimate terms with one Dwarkadas, and Dwarkadas was for some years, until his death in August 1909, agent and managing director of the appellant Company, and of two other Companies, the Tricumdas and the Lakhmidas; in 1908 the appellant was a flourishing and solvent Company, and the two other Companies were largely insolvent; and both were heavily indebted to the respondent for advances, to the amount of about 5 1/2 lacs. The respondent was pressing Dwarkadas for further and better security in respect of these sums, and also of other monies advanced by the respondent to Dwarkadas personally; and Dani and Dwarkadas accordingly arran...
Tag this Judgment!Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy Vs. Mulji Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR460
Dunedin, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent, Mulji Haridas, sues the defendant-appellant, Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy, upon a promissory note jointly executed by the defendant and the firm of Hyderally Cassumji Sons & Co., hereinafter called Hyderally, for Rs. 50,000. The note was made in the following circumstances. Mulji, before July 1907, had made advances to Hyderally amounting in all to Rs. 400,000, the consideration for making such advances being certain shares in an agency commission in a certain company. The advances were partially but not wholly covered by security. In July 1907, Hyderally applied for a further advance of Rs. 150,000 in order to pay off Motabhai a debt of that amount due to him. Mulji agreed to make the loan, a condition being an increased share in the commission agency, and to make it in three equal instalments. Two of these instalments were paid and the money handed on by Hyderally to Motabhoy, and the third instalment fell to be paid on 30th January 1908.2. At the e...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal Vs. the Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Compa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR484
George Farwell, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated 20th August 1912, of the High Court of Bombay affirming a judgment and decree of the High Court in its original jurisdiction made on 4th March 1912.2. In 1909, the date of the transactions in question in this appeal, the appellant was a banker and moneylender in Bombay, having as his business manager there one Dani. At the same time the respondent Company had as its secretaries, treasurers and agents the firm of Jiwandas & Co., consisting of two partners, Dwarkadas Dharamsey and Purshotam, and Dwarkadas was also Agent and Managing Director of the Tricumdas Mills Company and the Lakhmidas Mills Company; both of these Companies were then quite insolvent, while the respondents were perfectly solvent.3. On the 13th February 1909 Dwarkadas applied to Dani for a loan to himself or either of the two mills of Rs. 50,000; Dani refused to make the advance to Dwarkadas but agreed to make it to Purshotam, and accordingly, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Chintaman Ganesh Oka Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom139(2); (1915)17BOMLR682; 30Ind.Cas.548
Heaton, J.1. I think that in this case the appellant who is the plaintiff has been very erroneously instructed regarding the manner in which, if indeed he has any genuine grievance, he should present that grievance before the Court. He is the Inamdar of a village and in virtue of the grant to his ancestor he says, and for the purposes of this case we accept it, that there have become vested in him all the rights of Government subject to this only that the rights of the Kadim Hakdars and Inamdars are not affected. Now it appears that these Hakdars receive certain allowances which are paid out of the land revenue collected in the village, before the surplus is paid to the Inamdar. By surplus I mean what is left over after paying so much as is due for Government dues for village expenses and so forth.2. The plaintiff was anxious to have the payment of these dues to the Hakdars in his own hands, and he brought this suit mainly for a declaration that he was entitled to pay these moneys dire...
Tag this Judgment!Timangowda Venkangowda Vs. Benepgowda Chhenapgowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom22(2); (1915)17BOMLR335
Batchelor, J.1. The facts upon which this appeal has to be decided lie within very small compass, and may be briefly stated. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a house, and admittedly he purchased that house from the defendants under a registered sale-deed. But the defendants are still in possession, and the contesting defendant, that is the 1st defendant, met the plaintiff's claim with the plea that the defendant was entitled to retain possession, because the plaintiff had agreed to reconvey the house to the defendant on payment of Rs. 400, and this sum of Rs. 400 had been paid. The finding of fact of the lower appellate Court is, however, that the Rs. 400 have not been paid, so that in the defendant's favour there is this circumstance, and nothing more, that the plaintiff is found to have agreed to reconvey, on payment of Rs. 400. In this state of the facts the learned District Judge has made a decree directing that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the hous...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Specie Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR342
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the learned Chamber Judge upon four summonses taken out in the matter of the liquidation of the Indian Specie Bank. In those summonses the applicant, Sorabji Nusserwanji Pochkhanawalla, calls upon the opposing parties, C.A. Patwardhan, Damodardas Hemandas, Girdharlal Harilal Mehta and Jagjiwandas Kahandas Shah to show cause why the list of contributories should not be amended by substituting their names in place of the name of the applicant in regard to the shares specified in the summonses. The application is made under Section 58 of the Indian Companies Act (VI of 1882) and the Court is asked to make an order upon the summonses on the ground that it has the power under Section 147 of settling the list and rectifying the register in cases in which such rectification is required in pursuance of Section 58. Section 58 provides that if the name of any person is fraudulently or without sufficient cause entered in, or omitted...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Indian Companies Act Vi of 1882, Vs. C.A. Patwardhan the Chief ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom134
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the learned Chamber Judge upon four summonses taken out, in the matter of the liquidation of the Indian Specie Bank. In those summonses the applicant, Sorabji Nusserwanji Pochkhanawalla, calls upon the opposing parties, C.A. Patwardhan, Damodardas Hemandas, Girdharlal Harilal Mehta and Jagjiwandas Kahandas Shah to show cause why the list of contributories should not be amended, by substituting their names in place of the name of the applicant in regard to the shares specified, in the summonses. The application is made under Section 58 of the Indian Companies Act (VI of 1882) and the Court is asked to make an order upon the summonses on the ground that it has the power under Section 147 of settling the list and rectifying the register in cases in which such rectification is required in pursuance of Section 58. Section 58 provides that if the name of any person is fraudulently or without sufficient cause entered in, or omitted f...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jamnadas Vasanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR389
Heaton, J.1. This may be a hard case, but it seems to me to be a case as to which the law is quite clear. There is an accusation of cheating against a trader of Salem in the Madras Presidency. The alleged cheating is that he deceived a trader in Dhulia in this Presidency by leading him to believe that he was buying clean ground-nut oil when, in reality, he was buying a mixture of ground nut oil with rock oil. The Dhulia trader, it is said, was induced by the deceit to pay the price agreed upon on the understanding that it was clean oil. If the facts are as I have stated, there is a case of cheating. One of the essential ingredients of cheating, one of those things without which there cannot be cheating as defined in the Indian Penal Code, is deceit. There must be a person who deceives and a person who is deceived. Here, according to the allegations, the person who was deceived was at Dhulia, it was there that he was the victim of the deceit, there that he was led to believe that which ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulam Hyder Panjabi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR384
Shah, J.1. The applicant in this case has been convicted of causing grievous hurt by a rash and negligent act under Section 338, Indian Penal Code.2. It is urged on his behalf that his act was neither rash nor negligent as alleged by the prosecution, that he is protected by Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, as the complainant consented to suffer the harm caused to her, and that the hurt caused is not proved to be grievous hurt. As regards the first contention, the facts which are either proved or admitted are these. The accused, who is a Hakim, performed an operation, on the outer side of the upper lid of the right eye of the complainant. The instruments used were a pair of scissors and a needle, which would be ordinarily used by a tailor and not by an eye-surgeon. The wound was sutured with an ordinary thread. As the Magistrate correctly finds : the most ordinary precautions, such as, using proper instruments for the operation as well as for protecting the eye-ball, disinfecting an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »