Mumbai Court January 1916 Judgments
Wilfred R. Padgett Vs. Jamshetji Hormusji Chothia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.724
Macleod, J.1. Between the 2nd April 1913 and the 14th August 1913 the defendant signed five promissory notes for various amounts payable on demand with interest at 6 per cent, in favour of Messrs. Bume and Reif. Deducting various payments made from time to time there remained due for principal and interest, when the suit was filed, Rs. 15,017-8-11.2. When war broke out between Great Britain and Austria the firm of Bume and Reif became a hostile firm.3. On the 9th February 1915, a license was granted to the firm of Bume and Reif on the application of W.R.Padgett, Assistant Manager of the firm, under the Hostile Foreigners Trading Order to carry on business under certain conditions. The license was to remain in force until the 14th August 1915.4. On the 15th August 1915, a fresh license was granted to the firm for the purpose of winding-up their business which expired on the 14th November, and, on the 17th January 1916, it was notified in the Gazette that an extension after that date had...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay and Africa Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. Vs. Haji Ajum Goolam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom164; 34Ind.Cas.525
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Beaman in a suit in which the plaintiffs are the charterers and the defendants are the owners of the steamer Abydos, which was chartered to carry a cargo of rice from Burma to Bombay. In the main there are two questions which have to be decided. The first is the question of dunnage and the alleged damage caused by insufficient or improper laying of dunnage, and the other is the question of shortage and sweepings.2. Dealing, first, with the question of dunnage, the charter party provides : nothing herein contained shall exempt the shipowners from liability to pay for damage to cargo occasioned by bad stowage, by improper or insufficient dunnage or certain other specific causes,' and at the end of the charter party it is expressly provided that the charterers' stevedores at the loading port are to be employed at current market rates but not exceeding the owners' contract rate, and all mats and requisite dunnage to be ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Gulam Rasul GyasudIn K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom392
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State who was the defendant in the original suit. That suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a piece of land forming an open space in front of his house belonged to him and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his enjoyment of it.2. Of the three points urged in appeal by the learned Government Pleader, the first is the question of fact whether the plaintiff had proved his title. Now the evidence in favour of the plaintiff upon this point is, it is not disputed, sufficient and convincing, unless the effect of it can be removed by the consideration which formed the basis of Sir Charles Sargent's decision in Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhowji (1892) 16 Bom. 338 where the learned Chief Justice pointed out that in this country slight acts of user were insufficient to give a title to land by adverse possession. That, however, was a very different case from the one which we are now...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay and Africa Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Haji Azum Gulam Hu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom119
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Beaman in a suit in which the plaintiffs are the charterers and the defendants are the owners of the steamer 'Abydos' which was chartered to carry a cargo of rice from Burma to Bombay. In the main there are two questions which have to be decided. The first is the question of dunnage and the alleged, damage caused by insufficient or improper laying of dunnage, and the other is the question of the shortage and sweepings.2. Dealing, first, with the question of dunnage, the charter-party provides: 'nothing herein contained shall exempt the shipowners from liability to pay for damage to cargo occasioned by bad stowage, by improper or insufficient dunnage or certain other specific causes,' and at the end of the charter-party it is expressly provided that the charterers' stevedores at the loading port are to be employed at current market rates but not exceeding the owners' contract rate, and all mats and requisite dun...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Gulam Rusul GayasudIn Kuwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom296; 34Ind.Cas.535
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State who was the defendant in the original suit. That suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a piece of land forming an open space in front of his house belonged to him and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his enjoyment of it.2. Of the three points urged in appeal by the learned Government Pleader, the first is the question of fact whether the plaintiff had proved his title. Now the evidence in favour of the plaintiff upon this point is, it is not disputed, sufficient and convincing, unless the effect of it can be removed by the consideration which formed the basis of Sir Charles Sargent's decision in Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhowji 16 B. 338, where the learned Chief Justice pointed out that in this country slight acts of user were insufficient to give a title to land by adverse possession. That,, however, was a very different case from the one which we are now consid...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Haji Essack Elias Vs. Abdul Rahiman Shaik Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom180; 33Ind.Cas.694
1. There are two questions in this case. The first is whether the learned Judge in making the stay order which is under appeal acted without jurisdiction. It was contended that Section 18(3) was the only section which could apply and that only applied where a suit had been instituted before the adjudication order was made. We have, however, been referred to the observations of the Division Court in England in Browns combe v. Fair (1887) 58 L.T. 85, expressing the opinion that the corresponding words of Section 10 of the English Bankruptcy Act, which are practically identical with those of Section 18(3) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, were wide enough to justify a stay of proceedings in an action which was not pending at the time of the order of adjudication.2. The only other question is whether the learned Judge was wrong in exercising his discretion in the way he did to stay proceedings. The insolvent, it is true, has been guilty of many acts which incurred the Severe reprobat...
Tag this Judgment!Tehilram Girdharidas Vs. LongIn D'mello
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom77; (1916)18BOMLR587
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit, a money-lender, claims to have a preferential right over all the creditors of the deceased Gabriel F. Vaz in respect of certain hypothecated property, being the press machines and other accessories of the Minto Printing Press.2. The Official Assignee, a party defendant in this suit, has taken no part in it. I suppose that is because the deceased Vaz has no other assets worth troubling about than the subject-matter of the present suit.3. The defendant D'Mello alleges that, on the 3rd of October 1914, he put Rs. 3000 into what was thereon constituted a partnership between himself and Vaz for the working of the Minto Printing Press, He, therefore, contends that the plaintiff's claim, if in all other respects proved to be valid, must be restricted to a half share of the assets of that partnership upon a proper winding-up.4. On the one hand, the defendant contends that the writings of hypothecation of the nth of March 1913 and the 27th of February 19...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nusserwanji and Co. Vs. S.S. Wartenfels
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom258; (1916)ILR40Bom588
Macleod,1. This is an application to review the certificate of the Taxing Master. On the 18th September 1914, the plaintiff filed this suit against the S.S. Wartenfels then lying in Bombay harbour to recover the price of coal, supplied to her before she left Bombay in July 1914. The vessel was the subject-matter of certain proceedings in Prize in the Court of the Resident at Aden and had been handed over to the Bombay Government by an order of that Court, dated the 4th September. The Secretary of State, therefore, became defendant on intervention in the suit which was eventually dismissed as against him and the plaintiffs were ordered by the decree to pay, his costs of the suit when taxed. The defendant, accordingly, brought in his bill of costs for taxation. On such taxation the plaintiff contended that only such sums as had been disbursed by the defendant's solicitor on his behalf should be allowed and that as the defendant employed a solicitor on a fixed salary and also paid a fixed...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nusservanji and Co. Vs. Ss. Wartenfels
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.362
Macleod, J.1. This is an application to review the certificate of the Taxing Master. On the 18th September 1914, the plaintiff filed this suit against the Sections Wartenfels then lying in Bombay harbour to recover the price of coal, supplied to her before she left Bombay in July 1914. The vessel was the subject-matter of certain proceedings in Prize in the Court of the Resident at Aden and had been handed over to the Bombay Government by an order of that Court, dated the 4th September. The Secretary of State, therefore, became defendant on intervention in the suit which was eventually dismissed as against him and the plaintiffs were ordered by the decree to pay his costs of the suit when taxed. The defendant, accordingly, brought in his bill of costs for taxation. On such taxation the plaintiff contended that only such sums as had been disbursed by the defendant's solicitor on his behalf should be allowed and that as the defendant employed a solicitor on a fixed salary and also paid a...
Tag this Judgment!The Madhavji Dharamsey Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. the Central India Sp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom182; (1917)ILR41Bom49
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. As to the main facts there is no dispute. They are concisely stated in the first paragraph of the judgment of the lower Court as follows:The plaintiffs are manufacturers of cloth which they manufacture in their Mill, in Nagpur, in the Central Provinces. In 1904, they commenced to manufacture, a certain Quality of black twill and for the purposes of reference they distinguished it from other kinds of cloth manufactured in the Mill, by assigning to this twill No. 2051. The shade colour of the twill was distinguished by a series of numbers commencing from 1. The black twill was distinguished by No. 10. The number 2051 was in no way descriptive of the twill cloth. On each piece of cloth, was also woven the device of a serpent surrounded by a scroll containing the name of the Empress Mill. This twill was put on the market in the North-West Frontier Provinces, Sindh and the Punjab where the plaintiffs have got their soiling agents at Amritsar, Peshawar and Karachi. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »