Mumbai Court September 1918 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.
Hukamchand Sarupchand Vs. Abraham E. J. Abraham
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR783
Beaman, J.1. The only point in controversy here is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount claimed. The answer to that depends upon what is claimed. Is this damages or is it money paid by an agent on account of his principal? Clearly it is damages. A Pakka Adatia as settled by the law of this Court can at will become a principal to enforce any contract which has been entrusted to him as agent by his original principal against that principal. I have frequently commented upon the legal anomalies involved in this entirely new and unique legal entity. But in this Presidency at any rate we must take it as we find it. When, then, a Pakka Adatia sues as in the present case relying upon his character not as agent but as principal and thereby deliberately protects himself against inquiries which ordinarily are made about the amounts he has actually expended as agent on behalf of his principal, it is, I think, too plain to admit of argument that the claim differs in no respec...
Narsinggirji Manufacturing Co. Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Ry.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom26; (1919)21BOMLR406
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This appeal arises in Civil Suit No. 709 of 1914 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur. It is one of a number of suits resulting from the destruction of goods in the goods forwarding shed at Sholapur by a fire which took place on the 14th May 1913 at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon.2. The defendants are a company governed by the provisions of the Indian Railways Act of 1890.3. Section 72 of that Act provides that their liability in respect of goods delivered to be carried shall be that of a bailee under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, and their liability as bailee in respect of such goods can only be limited by agreement with the consignor provided that such agreement has been approved by the Governor General in Council. The expression 'goods delivered to be carried' is taken from the English Carriers Act, and Section 72 is intended to indicate that the railway companies in this country shall not be liable to the extent of common car...
Narsinggirji Manufacturing Co. Vs. the Great Indian Peninsular Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.309
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This appeal arises in Civil Suit No. 709 of 1914 in the Court of the first class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur. It is one of a number of suits resulting from the destruction of goods in the goods forwarding shed at Sholapur by a fire which took place on the 14th May 1913 at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon.2. The defendants are a company governed by the provisions of the Indian Railways Act of 1890.3. Section 72 of that Act provides that their liability in respect of goods delivered to be carried shall be that of a bailee under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, and their liability as bailee in respect of such goods can only be limited by agreement with the consignor provided that such agreement has been approved by the Governor-General in Council. The expression 'goods delivered to be carried' is taken from the English Carriers Act, and Section 72 is intended to indicate that the Railway Companies in this country shall not be liable to the extent of common car...
Shirinbai Vs. Ratanbai and Navajbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom54; (1919)21BOMLR384; 51Ind.Cas.209
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Beaman J. We have to construe the will of Bomanji Kai-khusru Modi who, by Clause 4 of his will as to all his property, made his wife Kuverbai 'Malek Mukhtyar' during her life, just as the testator was the owner, free from question by any of his other heirs, representatives, relatives and kinsmen, with directions (Clause 5) that she should protect the children, as he had protected them, according to their means, declaring (Clause 6) that if any of his children should not behave respectfully towards, and act according to the order of, the mother, then during her life-time the child should not have any claim to any of the testator's property.2. Clause 7 provided that 'agreeably to what was written above, the wife was, during her life-time, to carry on 'Vahivat' (management), in respect of every kind of property and make expenses on auspicious and inauspicious occasions', as the testator had been doing.' The clause proceeds 'and in...
The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Vs. Ramchandra Jagannath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom67; (1919)21BOMLR6
Basil Scott, C.J.1. On the 16th of September 1916, the plaintiff' delivered to the defendants and the defendants accepted at the Victoria Terminus Station a parcel containing twenty-four account-books consigned to the plaintiffs firm at Nagpur for carriage from Victoria Terminus Station to Nagpur. The parcel arrived at Nagpur on the 18th September. On the 19th it was misdelivered to a chaprasi from the Nagpur jail who had come for another parcel which was of the same weight and bore a similar number upon it. The parcel, for which the jail chaprasi had come, had been dispatched from Khandwa, also on the 16th of September, in order that the papers contained in it might be destroyed in the Nagpur jail. The plaintiff's books after being delivered to the Jail chaprasi were taken to the Jail Superintendent and were then destroyed by mistake owing to his thinking that they were the papers consigned from Khandva. The plaintiff submits that the account-books have been lost to him by reason of t...
Mahadeo Gopalbhat Vs. Trimbakbhat Balambhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom75; (1919)21BOMLR344
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The decree under execution was passed on the 12th of December 1910. It was a partition decree in which the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants were determined. The defendant No. 4 made an application No. 789 of 1914, for execution of the decree, on the 2nd of November 1914. That application was rejected as time-barred. The order made thereon was in these terms: 'The Darkhast was given on the 2nd of November 1914. The decree was passed on the 12th of December 1910. It is therefore not in time under Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The applicant says that it is in time because the defendant No. 5 had given some Darkhasts to execute the decree against some defendants within three years from the date of the decree and this Darkhast was given within three years from those Darkhasts. This statement itself is too vague. He does not give even the numbers of the Darkhasts or their dates. He produces no copies to show them. His...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›