Mumbai Court January 1916 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.
The Madhavji Dharamsey Manufacturing, Co., Ltd. Vs. the Central India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.529
Basil Scott, 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 selling agents at Amritsar, Peshawar and Karachi. The dealer...
Shavakshaw D. Davar Vs. Tyab Haji Ayub
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom386
Macleod, J.1. This is a motion taken out by the plaintiff for an order that the adjustment of the suit arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, as stated in the plaintiff's affidavit, should be recorded and that a decree in accordance therewith should be passed.2. The suit was filed on the 11th of June 1915, the plaintiff praying that the defendant might be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 5,353-9-6 as the price of goods sold. On the 21st of August 1915, the parties without the intervention of the Court agreed to refer the matters in dispute between them concerning the contract referred to in the plaint, to the arbitration of Motilal Dayaram and Ramji Meghji. The arbitrators made their award on the 28th of October 1915. The award was filed on the 10th of December. In my opinion, a wrong procedure has been adopted. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 under which the application is made only refers to the adjustments of suits wholl...
Shavaksha Dinsha Davar Vs. Tyab Haji Ayub
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom125(2); 37Ind.Cas.140
Macleod, J.1. This is a motion taken out by the plaintiff for an order that the adjustment of the suit arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, as stated in the plaintiff's affidavait, should be recorded and that a decree in accordance therewith should be passed.2. The suit was filed on the 11th of June 1915, the plaintiff praying that the defendant might be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 5,353-9-6 as the price of goods sold. On the 31st August 1915, the parties, without the intervention of the Court, agreed to refer the matters in dispute between them concerning the contract referred to in the plaint to the arbitration of Motilal Dayaram and Ramji Meghji. The arbitrators made their award on the 28th of October 1915. The award was filed on the 10th of December. In my opinion, a wrong procedure has been adopted. Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 under which the application is made only refers to the adjustments of suits wholl...
Govind Balvant Laghate Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom229; 34Ind.Cas.976
Batchelor, J.1. The arguments in this appeal have occupied us for more than three days. But so far from thinking that any part of that time was wasted, I am of opinion that the Court is indebted to the learned Counsel on both sides for the assistance which they have afforded us by their able and thoroughgoing arguments. In a case of this importance it is a matter of much satisfaction to feel sure that no point which could possibly be urged in the appellant's favour has passed unnoticed.2. The appellant is one Govind Balwant Laghate who, up to the time of his suspension in view of this prosecution, belonged to that excellent and deserving body of public servants, the Subordinate Judges. In that body he -held a distinguished position, being a Subordinate Judge of the first class and drawing a substantial salary of Rs. 800 a month-a salary which, unless his mode of life was very extravagant, must have been more than sufficient for his needs. He has now been convicted of being a corrupt Ju...
Narayan Ramkrishna Pandit and ors. Vs. Vighneshwar Ganap Hegde and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom378
Batchelor, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is, whether the document, Exhibit 25, executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, is, as on its face it purports to be, a sale, or is in reality a mortgage in the guise of a sale. The plaintiffs' suit was brought to redeem the mortgage which, as the plaintiffs alleged, was effected by this Exhibit 25, so that admittedly the suit must fail if it should be held that no mortgage is created by this document.2. The learned Judge below was of opinion that Exhibit 25 was in reality a mortgage, and the grounds of this opinion are stated by him in the following words: after referring to the terms providing for the condition to repurchase the property after the lapse of twenty years, the Judge says:But for the addition of these terms the deed (Exhibit 25) would have been a sale. But with the addition of the terms the deed becomes a mortgage by conditional sale, because there is a condition in Exhibit 25 that the sale should be...
Narayan Ramkrishna Pandit and ors. Vs. Vigneshwar Ganap Hegde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.414
Batchelor, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is, whether the document Exhibit 25, executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, is, as on its face it purports to be, a sale, or is in reality a mortgage in the guise of a sale. The plaintiffs' suit was brought to redeem the mortgage which, as the plaintiffs alleged, was effected by this Exhibit 25, so that admittedly the suit must fail if it should be held that no mortgage is created by this document.2. The learned Judge below was of opinion that Exhibit 25 was in reality a mortgage, and the grounds of this opinion are stated by him in the following words. After referring to the terms providing for the condition to re-purchase the property after the lapse of twenty years, the Judge says:But for the addition of these terms the deed (Exhibit 25) would have been a sale. But with the addition of the terms the deed becomes a mortgage by conditional sale, because there is a condition in Exhibit 25 that the sale should be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›