Mumbai Court March 1919 Judgments
Valli Mahomed Abu Vs. Berthold Reir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR785
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The only question to be decided on the cross-objection is whether the learned Judge in the lower Court was right in holding that the defendant was entitled in the account between the parties to a refund of any interest paid between the 10th of August 1914 and the 9th February 1915. The former date is taken as the date of the outbreak of war between England and Austria and the latter is the date when the first license was granted to the plaintiff's representative in Bombay to conclude their indent transactions. These transactions were-so far as is indicated by the specimen indent put in-indents sent from Bombay to Bradford for goods from the plaintiffs' firm at that place. One of the plaintiffs, Reif, was a naturalized British subject. The partnership of the plaintiffs being between an Austrian and a naturalised Englishman was dissolved by the outbreak of war but the plaintiff Reif was granted a license under the Proclamation of the 9th September 1914 in England.2. W...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramkrishna Haribhaoo Vadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR753
Heaton, J.1. The main purpose of the contract is that the artificer shall work for ten years for his employer, One of its stated objects, and a most important one, is to prevent the artificer leaving his employer's service during the period of ten years. I cannot believe that such contracts as this were ever intended to come under Act XIII of 1859. To me the words taken with the declared object of the Act definitely suggest that they were not.2. Therefore I think the rule should be made absolute.Shah, J.3. The question arising in this application is whether the contract between the parties falls within the purview of Act XIII of 1859. The applicant entered into a contract with his employer on the 17th January, 1917, whereby he agreed to serve for a period of ten years on a salary of Rs. 40 per mensem as an artisan and not to go elsewhere leaving his service. The employer purported to advance Rs. 286 ; but it is found that Rs. 186 represented the previous advances and that Rs. 100 only ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Haribhaoo Vadke Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom96; 52Ind.Cas.669
Heaton, J.1. The main purpose of the con-tract is that the artificer shall work for ten years for his employer. One of its stated objects, and a most important one, is to prevent the artificer leaving his employer's service during the period of ten years. I cannot believe that sash contracts as this were ever intended to come under Act XIII of 1859. To me the words taken with the declared object of the Act definitely suggest that they were not. Therefore, I think the Rule should be made absolute.Shah J.2. The question arising in this application is whether the contract between the parties falls within the purview of Act XIII of 1859. The applicant entered into a contract with his employer on the 17th January 1917, whereby he agreed to serve for a period of ten years on a salary of Rs. 40 per mensem as an artisan and not to go elsewhere leaving his service. The employer purported to advance Rs. 286; but it is found that Rs. 186 represented the previous advances and that Rs. 100 only wer...
Tag this Judgment!N. Roy and Co. Vs. Surana, Dalal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1919
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1119
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs stated in their plaint that, on the 16th June 1917, by a written indent they requested the defendants to order out fifteen tons Zinc Chloride 980 at 105 per ton free Bombay Harbour from the defendants' friends in England on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the indent.2. On the 25th June the defendants informed the plaintiffs that their order had been placed with their Manchester friends at plaintiffs' limit. Under the indent shipment was to be as early as possible subject to shipping.3. On the 11th August the plaintiffs wrote asking whether the goods had been shipped. In September the defendants informed the plaintiffs that the goods were shipped and were expected to arrive in Bombay shortly. The plaintiffs wrote again on the 13th and 17th September asking for information regarding the arrival of the steamer and on the 26th September they wrote asking for the invoice of the goods.4. Thereafter they heard that the goods indented for or a great porti...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivasdas Lakshminarayan Vs. Ramchandra Ramrattandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR788
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr; Justice Beam an dismissing the plaintiff's suit,2. The plaintiff sues for damages occasioned by his up-countery constituent failing to perform contracts for the purchase oi sovereigns entered into for him by the plaintiff for the Vaishakh and Jetha Vaidas of 1918.3. The damages claimed were assesssd as of the 1st of July 1918 and no objection is taken to this date.4. On the 22nd of August 1918 a Notification under the Defence of India Act ( IV of 1915 ) was issued as follows:-No person shall sell or purchase or offer to sell or purchase any coin for an amount exceeding the face value of such coin or shall accept or offer to accept any such coin in payment of a debt or otherwise for an amount exceeding its face value. 4. By the same Notification 'coin' was defined as coin which is legal tender under any Enactment for the time being in force in British India.5. Under the Indian Coinage Act, 1900, a sovereign is legal tender for...
Tag this Judgment!Nazarali SamsuddIn Vs. Malwa and Co
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1919
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1108
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff is a hardware merchant carrying on business in Bombay. On the 1st May 1916 he signed an indent form addressed to Malwa & Co., the trade name of Ardesar Bhikajee Malwa, the defendant.2. The important printed clauses for the purpose of the case are 1819 as follows :-1. I hereby request you to instruct) your agents to purchase for me in Europe and Japan (if possible) the undermentioned goods on my account and risk upon the terms and limits stated below.2. It shall be optional with your agents to execute the whole or any part of this order and if more than one report is given to me the last one to be considered as binding on me. Each kit or shipment to be considered a separate contract.3. Terms of payment. I authorise you to draw upon me for the total amount of invoice in draft or drafts at 30 day a sight at current rate of exohange and such draft or drafts I bind myself to accept on presentation and pay at maturity. In the event of the goods arriving before the...
Tag this Judgment!Nathmal Ghamirmal Vs. Maniram Radhakisson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom152; (1919)21BOMLR975
Pratt, J.1. The judgment-creditor in this case applies for payment of the money received by the Sheriff under a warant of attachment issued in execution of the decree in Suit No. 456 of 1918. The Prothonotary refused to issue an order in form 64 holding that the money was an asset available for ratable distribution.2. The judgment-creditor had taken out a warrant in form 48 for attachment of the moveable property of the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 43.3. The bailiff entered judgment-debtor's shop and showed the warrant to a partner in the judgment-debtor's firm and pointed out that if the money were not paid he would seize and keep in his custody the moveable property in his 6hop. The judgment-debtor then paid the decretal amount with costs of execution and sheriff's poundage.4. The question is whether this amount is available for ratable distribution among the other judgment-creditors who had made previous execution applications.5. Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Alimahmad Abdul HusseIn Vs. Vadilal Devchand Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR849
Shah, J.1. The facts material to the point arising in this second appeal after the remand are briefly these: One Tyabaji Farzullabhai applied to the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, Bombay, and the usual vesting order was made on the 10th January 1887. Subsequently on the debtor's application a personal discharge subject to any further orders was allowed and in accordance with the practice, that obtained then, a judgment for all the debts was entered against the insolvent in favour of the Official Assignee under Section 86 of the Indian Insolvency Act ( 11 & 12 Vic. c. 21 ) on the 17th August 1887. The insolvent did not obtain any final discharge under the Act and in fact nothing was done in the matter of the insolvency up to his death in 1904 or up to November 1917 after his death. Owing to the non-production of the necessary papers the lower appellate Court had some doubt as to the existence of the vesting order and as to whether there was a final discharge of the insolvent...
Tag this Judgment!Upadrashta Venkata Sastrulu Vs. Divi Sitaramudu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR925
Viscount Cave, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against a judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on the 18th March, 1914, and decrees made in pursuance thereof in eleven suits. The High Court by its judgment affirmed a judgment of the District Judge of Kistna whereby he set aside the decision of the Munsif of Gudivada and directed the return of the plaints in all the suits for presentation in the Revenue Court.2. The suits out of which those appeals arose were suits for ejectment in respect of different parts of the inam village of Billapadu in the Gudivada sub-district of the Kistna district. The appellant, who was the plaintiff in all the suits, is the inamdar of the village, holding under a grant made to his ancestor in or about the year 1748, and since confirmed and recognised by the British Government. The defendants were persons who at various dates in the year 1907 had been let into possession by the plaintiff under tenancy agreements, expiring in 1908. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sabitkhan Bahadurkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom104; (1919)21BOMLR448; 51Ind.Cas.657
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The case against the accused is that in concert with Honya and Umya he murdered his brother Mahammad-khan on or about the 25th September 1917 about 8 or 9 in the morning in the forest near Alkeri in Kanara. Honya and Umya were tried jointly with the accused by the Sessions Judge of Kanara and two assessors. Honya and Umya were found guilty upon their own confessions, but the accused Sabitkhan was acquitted, and the Government of Bombay have appealed against his acquittal.2. The evidence before me is that which was recorded by the Sessions Judge at the joint trial. It establishes that Mahammadkhan was the owner of the most of the land and houses, only eight or nine in number in the village Alkeri which is situated less than a mile and a half from Kirwatty, Kirwatty being on the main road from Yellapur to Kalgutgy, and about twelve miles from the latter place. The relations between Sabitkhan and Mahammadkhan the deceased were very strained. Mahammadkhan had neither wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›