Mumbai Court July 1915 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.
Giovani Gorio Vs. Vallabhdas Kalianji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom209; (1915)17BOMLR762; 30Ind.Cas.864
Beaman, J.1. This suit is brought by Messrs. B.G. Gorio & Co., a firm, against the three defendants, Vallabhdas Kalianji, Manilal Premchand and Dwarkadas Naranji, as members constituting the firm of Lakhmidas Vallabhdas and Co., to recover the losses on certain indent dealings. Defendants 1 and 2 appear and admit the plaintiffs' claim in full.2. The only question which I have been asked to try so far in this Court is, whether defendant No. 3, Dwarkadas Naranji, was a partner in the firm of Lakhmidas Vallabhdas, and, as such, was, and still is, liable to the plaintiffs.3. We start from the admitted proposition that defendant No. 3 was a partner of the firm up to the 9th of November 1912 I say that this is admitted because there is nothing in the written statement to suggest the contrary and the fact has been explicitly admitted by defendant No. 3 in his own correspondence exhibited in the suit. It is true that at the trial his counsel sought to start an entirely new defence, namely, tha...
Shankar Babaji Kulkarni Vs. Dattatraya Bhiwaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom262; (1915)17BOMLR725; 30Ind.Cas.925
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In this case the plaint stating the death of a Vatandar named Ramchandra alleged 'that the Kulkarni Vatan is to be continued in the eldest family; that the defendant No. 1 whose name was entered in the Register was not of the eldest family, and that the plaintiff was, and that in consequence of the defendants' objection the plaintiff's name was not entered in the Vatan Register. Therefore, the plaintiff brings this suit praying for a declaration (a) that he, the plaintiff, being of the eldest family, is the nearer heir of Ramchandra than the defendant; and (b) that the plaintiff has a right to have his name entered in the place of Ramchandra with respect to the Kulkarni Vatan at Bhalvani, he being of the eldest branch.'2. The lower Courts have held on the authority of Raoji v. Genu I.L.R. (1896) 22 Bom. 344 that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and it has therefore been dismissed. In our opinion their decision is not correct. Raoji v. Genu related to...
Manchharam Pranjivandas Vs. Panubhai Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom242; (1915)17BOMLR696; 30Ind.Cas.909
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant here was the 1st defendant in the suit, and the suit was brought by the plaintiffs for possession of a house. The plaintiffs claimed as legatees or reversioners either of one Tribhowandas or of Tribhowandas' posthumous son, who survived Tribhowandas for a period of three years. Four years after Tribhowandas' death his widow, who was the 2nd defendant, mortgaged the house in suit to the present appellant who was her own brother.2. The only questions with which we are concerned in this appeal are, whether the mortgage by the widow was without necessity and whether the plaintiffs' suit is out of time. On the first point the finding of the lower Courts that the mortgage was without necessity is conclusive as being a finding of fact, and though we have allowed Mr. Koyajee, for the appellant, to point out to us some alleged slips in the judgment of the lower Court upon this question, we are clearly of opinion, without examining whether the alleged slips or mista...
Narayan Vithal Samant Vs. Jankibai Sitaram Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom146; (1915)17BOMLR655; 30Ind.Cas.560
Batchelor, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench should, in ray opinion, be answered in the negative.2. The jurisdiction of this Court, and of the Judges composing the Court, is determined by the Statute 24 & 25 Vic. c. 104, by the Letters Patent issued thereunder, and by the Rules framed by the Court under the authority conferred by Section 13 of the Act. By Section 9 of the Act, it is provided that the Court shall have and exercise all such jurisdiction as Her Majesty may by Letters Patent grant and direct. Primarily, therefore, it is upon the Court that the jurisdiction is conferred, and Section 2 of the Act provides that the Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and as many Judges, not exceeding fifteen, as Her Majesty may appoint. Section 13 empowers the Court by its own rules to ' provide for the exercise, by one or more Judges, or by Division Courts constituted by two or more Judges,..of the Original and Appellate jurisdiction vested in such Court, in such manner as may ...
Majidmian Baxumian Vs. Bibi Saheb Jan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom214; (1915)17BOMLR770; 30Ind.Cas.870
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the declaration of a certain lien over a house and for confirmation and recovery of possession of different parts of the same house. The owner of the house was one Nanumiyan, a Sunni Mahommadan, who died in May 1897. He left behind him his mother Misri Bibi, two widows Bibi Lalkhatum and Bibi Saheb Jan, one daughter Bibi Fazl-un-nissa and one brother Majidmiyan. The mother died a year or two later. The senior widow Lalkhatum died in December 1906. The widows lived in the house at the time of their husband's death and their case is that they continued to live there until their return to Shikarpur in Sindh to their paternal relations in 1906. The junior widow Saheb Jan and the heirs of the senior widow join in bringing the present suit against the brother and daughter of Nanumiyan. Their case is that the dower fixed for Lalkhatum at the time of her marriage was Rs. 50,000 and that fixed for Saheb Jan was Rs. 7,500, that Nanumiyan died witho...
Majidmian Banumian Vs. Bibi-saheb Jan Widow of the Deceased Nanumiyan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom34
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the declaration of a certain, lien over a house and for confirmation and recovery of possession of different parts of the same house. The owner of the house was one Nanumiyan, a Sunni Mahomedan, who died in May 1897. He left behind him his mother Misri Bibi, two widows Bibi Lalkhatum and Bibi Saheb Jan, one daughter Bibi Fazl-un-nissa and one brother Majidmiyan. The mother died a year or two later. The senior widow Lalkhatum died in December 1906. The widows lived in the house at the time of their husband's death and their case is that they continued to live there until their return to Shikarpur in Sindh to their paternal relations in 1906. The junior widow Saheb Jan and the heirs of the senior widow join in bringing the present suit against the brother and daughter of Nanumiyan. Their case is that the dower fixed for Lalkhatum at the time of her marriage was Rs. 50,000 and that fixed for Saheb Jan was Rs. 7,500, that Nanumiyan died witho...
Emperor Vs. Silas Moses
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom206; (1915)17BOMLR670; 30Ind.Cas.649
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence passed under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of criminal breach of trust in respect of a motor car of the value of about Rs. 7246.2. When the appeal was admitted, my learned brother, Mr. Justice Seaman, took occasion to express certain doubts which, upon the arguments and the materials then before the Court, occurred to him as to the propriety of this conviction, and I desire to say in deference to that expression of doubt that full weight has been given to the circumstances to which the learned Judge made allusion. But we have now had the advantage of a full argument on both sides together with a study of various exhibits and documents which were not before the Bench when this appeal was admitted. In the light cast upon the conviction by these fuller materials I am of opinion that the conviction is good and must be sustained.3. The appellant was the hirer of a Charron Motor Car from the Company, and the ...
Cursetji Dinshaw Bolton Vs. Gangaram Limbaji Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom187(2); (1915)17BOMLR680; 30Ind.Cas.545
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Subordinate. Judge refusing to appoint a Receiver. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Bhide on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies.2. Provisions for the appointment of Receivers are contained in Order XL of the Code, Rule 1, of that Order providing that the Court, when it considers it just and expedient to do so, may appoint a Receiver, remove any person from the possession of property, commit the property to the possession of a Receiver and confer upon the Receiver various powers there described. Order XLIII of the Code provides for appeals from orders, and it is admitted that a right of appeal, if it exists, must be given by the Statute or by some similar authority : Meenakshi Naidoo v. Subramaniya Sastri Clause (s) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII provides that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 1 of Order XL. The question, therefore, is, whether an order refusing to appoint a Receiver is an order made...
Thakurani Tara Kumari and Maharajah Sir Ravaneswar Prasad Singh Vs. Ch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1012
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals. That in which Thakurani Tara Kumari is the appellant has arisen in a suit which was brought by her on the 19th August 1907 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr against Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh and his minor sons. In that suit Maharajah Sir Ravaneswar Pershad Singh was a pro forma defendant. The other appeal, in which Maharaja Sir Ravaneswar Pershad Singh is the appellant, has arisen in a suit which was brought by him on the 19th August 1907 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr against Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh and his minor sons. In the latter suit Thakurani Tara Kumari and others were pro forma defendants. In each suit the Subordinate Judge made a decree in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. From each decree Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh and his minor sons appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, which, by its decree in each appeal, reversed the decree to which the appeal related and dismiss...
Ganga Sahai Vs. Kesri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR998
Ameer Ali, J.1. These several consolidated appeals from certain decrees and judgments of the High Court of Allahabad arise out of three suits brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad. The plaintiffs in two of these suits, claiming adversely to each other to be the heirs of one Bahadur Singh, deceased, sought to recover from the appellant Ganga Sahai a one-third share of the properties specified in their respective plaints which he had purchased at a sale held in execution of a decree upon a mortgage to which reference will be made presently. The third suit was brought by Kalka Pershad, one of the plaintiffs in the above suits, to recover from the respondent Chunni Lal certain shares in Mouzah Malkapur belonging to the estate of Bahadur Singh which had been conveyed to him by one Gulab Koer, Bahadur's stepmother.2. Their Lordships propose to deal first with the two suits in which Ganga Sahai was the defendant.3. The mortgage bond referred to above was executed so lon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »