Mumbai Court February 1919 Judgments
Damusa Vs. Abdul Samad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR920
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, which reversed a judgment of the District Court, Amraoti, which in its turn affirmed a judgment of the Subordinate Judge there.2. The question which arises is whether the appellants are ontitled to cancellation of a sale deed, dated the 26th June, 1909, executed by them in favour of the respondent Abdul Samad, and to possession of the land to which it relates. Abdul Samad was the owner of three fields and on the 27th June, 1908, he executed a deed in favour of the appellants purporting to be a deed of absolute sale of these fields for Es. 3,000 (it being the fact that the fields were of a, much greater value). He also executed an agreement reciting the sale deed and providing that if purchase money of the same amount be paid for the fields on the 27th June, 1909, the appellants should resell, but the entire amount was to be paid on the date mentioned. This agreement was of the same...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramnarayan Amarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR732
Heaton, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons who were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Poona. It was transferred by this Court for hearing from the Court of the Sessions Judge of Poona to this Court.2. The case relates to a Company which for brevity's sake is called the Poona Mill. It had been working as a Mill from about the year 1894 with not very fortunate results, though it survived until 1915, in which year the Company went into liquidation and has since been wound up. The accused were for a good many years the Agents, Secretaries and Treasurers of the Company, and it is in relation to the balance-sheets for the years 1912 and 1913 that criminal accusations have been made against them. I need not go into details further than this: the charges in relation to the balance-sheet for 1912 were based on the allegation that in that year the mill had not by its working earned a profit, but that a profit was shown in the balance-sheet and that in so doing and in taking the profi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Satrucherla Vs. Maharaja of Jeypore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR914
Dunedin, J.1. On the 4th January, 1906, the appellants, who are zemindars, borrowed from the respondent, the Maharajah of Jaipur, five lacs of rupees, and in security thereof mortgaged certain lands. The mortgage is in ordinary form providing for payment of interest and compound interest, but contains the following special clause :-These properties are mortgaged and retained in our possession. But in case at any time any amount remains due out of the amount of interest payable on the due dates of any two years consecutively, or in case, within seven years from this date, the entire amount of principal and interest then remaining due be not paid, though the interest is paid according to instalments, we shall raise no sort of objections to your entering on and taking possession of the above-mentioned mortgaged properties, irrespective of the said mortgage term. 2. The terra of payment was, therefore, on the 4th January, 1913. By the 4th January, 1911, the borrowers were two years in arre...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnarayan Amarchand and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom111; 52Ind.Cas.481
Heaton, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons who were convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Poona. It was transferred by this Court for hearing from the Court of the Sessions Judge of Poona to this Court.2. The case relates to a Company which for brevity's sake is called the Poona Mill. It had been working as a mill from about the year 1894 with not very fortunate results, though it survived until 1915, in which year the Company went into liquidation and has since been wound up. The accused were for a good many years the Agents, Secretaries and Treasurers of the Company, and it is in relation to the balance-sheets for the years 1912 and 1913 that criminal accusations have been made against them, I need not; go into details farther than this: the changes in relation to the balance sheet for 1912 were based on the allegation that in that year the mill had not by its working earned a profit, but that a profit was shown in the balance sheet and that in so doing and in taking the prof...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas Cursondas Vs. Dulsukhbhai Vadilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom29; (1919)21BOMLR972
Pratt, J.1. This is an action instituted by an originating summons in which the plaintiff seeks a declaration that a partnership between himself and the four defendants was dissolved in October 1918-an account of the said partnership- damages for breach of the partnership agreement from defendants 1 and 2 and an indemnity for liabilities incurred in dealings with one Lallubhai.2. The defendants object that the summons should be dismissed under Rule 223 as this form of action is not appropriate to the matters in dispute.3. Provision was made for this form of action by the addition of appropriate words in Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code. But as Order IV, Rule 1, requires every suit to be instituted by a plaint a suit cannot be instituted by originating summona under the Civil Procedure Code.4. The procedure rests solely on rules made by this Court under the Letters Patent and Section 129 of the Civil Procedure Code.5. These rules generally follow the English procedure which is ena...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Hoy Marwari Vs. Raja of Jheria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR895
John Edge, J.1. This in an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated the 26th March, 1914, of the High Court at Calcutta, which set aside a decree, dated the 24th June, 1912, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Purulia, and dismissed the suit.2. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought on the 25th April, 1911, by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they were, under a pottah of the 15th May, 1908, entitled to work and get the coal underlying 450 bighas of land in Mouzah Chandkuia, and to use and occupy certain waste danga lands of the Mouzah as they might require them for the purposes of the colliery. They alleged that they had been dispossessed by the Raja of Jheria, the defendant No. 1, and as against him they further claimed a decree for mesne profits. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had granted the pottah under which the plaintiffs claimed title, and as against them the plaintiffs sought certain other relief's to which they alleged that they were entitled. One of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nalluri Kristnamma Vs. Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR906
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated the 11th September, 1914 of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed a decree, dated the 19th December, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, which dismissed the suit. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was instituted on the 27th April, 1906 in the Court of the District Judge of Guntur, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge in which it was entered as Original Suit No. 1 of 1910. The plaintiffs in this suit (No. 1 of 1910) were Nalluri Krishnamma and his brother, Nalluri Adinarayudu. The original defendants in this suit were Kamepalli Ramalingam, who is now dead, and his sons, Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya and Kamepalli Seshu. Nalluri Lingayya, who is a natural brother of these plaintiffs, was added as a defendant to the suit on the 17th September, 1908, and is a nominal respondent to this appeal. He has not appeared, and it has been stated by counsel for the appellant that Na...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Nazir Begam Vs. Raghunath Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR484
Phillimore, J.1. This suit was brought to enforce a mortgage made on the 7th November, 1884, by the ancestor of the defendants and respondents Nos. 1 to 8, in favour of the ancestor of defendants and respondents Nos. 13 to 15, which mortgage was transferred on the 4th January, 1910, to the plaintiff appellant; defendants and respondents Nos. 9 to 12, claim title to certain of the lands in mortgage.2. The mortgage recites that the mortgagor had borrowed Rs. 398, in order to pay the Government revenue, and the covenant is in the following terms:I will repay the aforesaid sum together with interest at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per cent per mensem, in the month of Aghan, Sambat 1942, without any plea or excuse, and I will continue to pay the interest every six months. If fail to pay interest at the and of any six months, I will pay interest at the rate of Rs 3-2-0 per cent, per mensem from the date of the execution of this bond and that amount of interest shall be added to the principal. 3. As...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Issardas Vs. KhairuddIn Ranglahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom15; (1919)21BOMLR948
Marten, J.1. This is a very curious ease. It is an interpleader suit brought by the plaintiffs but neither of the two defendant-claimants appears at the trial. The first defendant has not entered an appearance at all in the suit. The second defendant did appear by a solicitor in the suit but has not appeared at the trial.2. The question, therefore, that arises, assuming the plaintiffs make out their case, is what relief the Court ought to grant.3. The facts very shortly are these. The plaintiffs are commission agents, and in July 1917 they received instructions from defendant 1 by telegram to sell 112 bales of cotton which were being consigned to the plaintiffs through defendant 2. They were also instructed to honour a hundi for Its. 12000 which the defendants or one of them were to draw on the plaintiffs. The cotton arrived and was duly sold and the hundi was honoured and paid by the plaintiffs. After doing all that, and after giving credit for the sale proceeds, and after debiting th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abu Hasan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR747
Heaton, J.1. We are hearing these matters in revision, but, as well as the point of law, we have had the evidence laid before us. It is a prosecution under the Defence of India Consolidation Rules of 1915. Under Rule 21A of those Rules it is made an offence to melt any current gold coin. It is urged against the accused No. 1 that he attempted to melt a number of sovereigns, and it is conceded that if he did attempt to melt sovereigns, he is guilty under this rule together with another rule which penalizes attempts. It is provided by Rule 30 that 'no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under these rules' unless certain authorities, amongst whom is the District Magistrate, have 'by order in writing consented to the initiation of the proceedings'. We have in this case the order in writing which purports to be the consent to the initiation of the proceedings, and that document recites that in the exercise of the authority vested in him by Rule 30 the District Magistrate o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »