Mumbai Court February 1919 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.
Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Panachand Odhavji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom99; (1919)21BOMLR770
Basil Scott, C.J.1. Joitaram Chhagan and Magan Joitaram traded in grain and cloth in partnership from the year 1908 till April 1911 when Magan died and the business of the firm came to an end. Eight days after the death of his partner, namely, on the 27th April 1911, Joitaram executed two registered documents by which he purported to mortgage practically the whole of his immoveable property to the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000 or thereabouts. The property which was his by right of ownership was mortgaged for Rs. 4,000, and the property which he held as mortgagee was assigned to the plaintiff as security for Rs. 1,400. In June in the same year the defendant, a creditor of Joitaram, brought a suit against him and obtained a decree in execution of which the properties mortgaged to the plaintiff were attached. The plaintiff then applied that the properties should be sold subject to his lien, but his application was rejected and the plaintiff' has brought this suit for a declaration that the defe...
Raoji Baburao Vs. Bansilal Narayan Marwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom130; (1919)21BOMLR835
Basil Scott, C.J.1. Less than thirty days before the 3rd of September 1915 the property of the applicant was sold in execution of a decree against him, and on the 3rd September, the applicant deposited in Court the amount of the decree together with interest on the purchase money for the property sold. He obtained from the Nazir of the Court who received the money a receipt which recorded that it was paid on account of the Darkhast and on account of interest. But no application was made at that time to set aside the sale. Presumably the intention was to do what was required under Order XXI, Rule 89. No application having been made to set aside the sale, the sale was confirmed in January 1916, and thereafter the Court gave notice to the applicant as depositor to take away his money. He then applied that his deposit should be considered as an application to set aside the sale. That application was refused, and the applicant did not appeal, although he was represented by a pleader. Then l...
Bhikabhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Panchand Alias Chhaganlal Odhavji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom707
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Joitaram Chhagan and Magan Joitaram traded in grain and cloth in partnership from the year 1908 till April 19.11 when Magan died and the business of the firm came to an end. Eight days after the death of his partner, namely, on the 27th April 1911, Joitaram executed two registered documents by which he purported to mortgage practically the whole of his immoveable property to the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000 or thereabouts. The property which was his by right of ownership was mortgaged for Rs. 4,000, and the property which he held as mortgagee was assigned to the plaintiff as security for Rs. 1,400. In June in the same year the defendant, a creditor of Joitaram, brought a suit against him and obtained a decree In execution of which the properties mortgaged to the plaintiff were attached. The plaintiff then applied that the properties should be sold subject to his lien, but his application was rejected and the plaintiff has brought this suit for a declaration that the...
Abu Hasan Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom156; 52Ind.Cas.597
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, add 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 proceeding?, and that document recites that, in the exercise of the authority vented in him by Rule 30, the District Magistrate...
Dinu Yesu Desai Vs. Shripad Baji Garware
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom34; (1919)21BOMLR720
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to redeem a mortgage of 1863. The defendants pleaded that the present suit was not maintainable in consequence of the decree in an earlier suit for redemption. In 1885, the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title had filed Suit No. 985 of 1885 for redemption, and obtained a decree on the 20th February 1888 in these terms: 'It is decreed that the plaintiff do redeem on payment to defendants 1 and 2 the sum of Rs. 518-11-6 and costs in both the Courts by six equal installments each of which is to be payable at the close of March in the years 1888-1893. On plaintiff's default to pay the whole sum by the end of March 1893, his right to redeem shall be forever barred.' The trial Court disallowed the defendants' contention and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for redemption. The lower appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the decree in the previous suit of 1885 was a b...
Govind Laxman Gokhale Vs. Harichand Mancharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom40; (1919)21BOMLR302; 50Ind.Cas.403
Marten, J.1. This is an action for specific performance of an alleged contract dated 28th November 1917 for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a property at Grant Road for Rs. 2,15,000. The defence is that there was no concluded contract, but merely an agreement to enter into a contract, which in law amounts to nothing. The point is that in the document sued on, there is a reference to a further document being executed, and the question is whether that reference prevents the document sued on being an enforceable contract.2. The document sued on is in duplicate, but as each duplicate is in the first person, the words of each part are not precisely the same. There are also some other differences in the precise wording of the two duplicates which I will consider later on. Both duplicates are in Gujarati. Taking the duplicate, Exh. A, signed by the defendant, it ran thus:To Govind Laxman Gokhale. Given in writing by Harichand Mancharam. To wit. What is written is as follows. I a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›