Mumbai Court June 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.
Weld and Co. Vs. Sher Ahmed Ekbal Ahmed and Haji Karim Shethi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.16
Marten, J.1. I have dealt with the claim in the suit and I am now on the third party notice. The claim in the suit has resulted in a decree for the plaintiffs Messrs. Weld & Co. against the defendant, for a sum of, Rs. 55,000, odd. This sum the defendant claims by his third party notice from his uncle, the third party, under a contract or right of indemnity.2. I should say, at the outset, that having regard to 'certain margin moneys, approximately Rs. 22,000, which were provided by the defendant and another sum of nearly Rs. 5,000 which represented' profit made by the defendant on his own previous transactions with the plaintiffs, and which sum of Rs. 5,000 was left as further margin money, the real sum due by the defendant to the plaintiffs and the real loss incurred by the defendant is over Rs. 82,000. This fact is material on Issues Nos. 2, 10 and 11 as to the effect of a certain compromise agreement of 2nd February 1917 between the plaintiffs and the defendant.3. It seemed to me, h...
The Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. Ltd. Vs. Srimati Katyayani D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR437
Ameer Ali, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Company in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of the 24 Pergunnahs in Bengal for the enhancement of the rent of a tenure held under them by the respondent. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the rent of the tenure was not enhancible; his judgment was reversed on appeal by the District Judge. On second appeal the High Court of Calcutta came to the conclusion as an inference of law on the documentary evidence and the conduct of the parties, that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge was well founded, and it accordingly set aside the District Judge's order and restored that of the first Court dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiff Company, a Syndicate, was formed in Bombay with the object of acquiring from Government grants of land in the Sunderbun Jungle Tract and reclaiming the same. The procedure that was adopted for the purpose was to carve out the land granted to them by Government in...
Weld and Co. Vs. Sher Ahmed Ekbal Ahmad and Haji Karim Elahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.12
Marten, J.1. This preliminary objection raises a two-fold point of jurisdiction viz, (1) whether, in this case, the whole cause of action arose out of the jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court has no power to hear the third party notice at all; and (2) if part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, then, whether express leave was not necessary under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent before the third party notice could be served.2. I am now on the third party notice, and have, as between plaintiffs and defendant already given a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The present issue, viz., No. 1, is between the defendant and the third party.3. On the first point, the substance of the suit relates to certain cotton contracts on which, as I have said, I have found the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs. As between the defendant and the third party the defendant's case depends on a right of indemnity and, substantially, it is based on an express agreement of the 21st May 19...
Weld and Co., a Firm Vs. Sher Ahmed Ekbal Ahmed and Haji Karim Elahi S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.10
Marten, J.1. This is a claim for Rs. 55, 783-9-4 on cotton contracts. There are also third party proceedings under an order of the 5th October 1917 which provides 'that the third party be at liberty to appear at the trial of this action and take such part therein as he may be advised and be bound by the result of the trial and...that the question of the liability of the third party to indemnify the defendant be tried at the trial of this action, but subsequent thereto.'2. I am now, in the first instance, trying the Lotion, which involves the question of the direct liability of the defendant to the plaintiffs. The defendant did not dispute hit liability to the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. Counsel for the third party, as I understood him, said he could not dispute the account, Exhibit E to the plaint, as between the plaintiffs and the defendant, but he was not prepared to say he would not dispute it at all. I did not altogether follow the precise effect of this destination, and I, ...
Rustamji A. Dubash Vs. Haji HusseIn Lari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1165
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the 6th of September 1918, a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for the purchase by the defendants of ten bales of Liepmanns' White Shirtings No. 1500, each bale containing 50 pieces at Rs. 35 per piece c. i. f. Bombay, shipment September 1918. Terms and conditions as per plaintiff's purchase from Messrs. Girdharidas Radhakisandas on further terms and conditions of Messrs. Volkart Bros', contract, freight in excess of 78 Sh. per ton and war risk insurance over 5 1/2 per cent, to be borne by the purchaser.2. It appears that, on the 21st of August, the plaintiffs had bought 30 bales of these Shirtings from Girdharidas and on the 22nd of August they bought 25 bales of similar Shirtings from Messrs. E. D. Sassoon & Co.3. On the 13th of November, plaintiff received from E. D Sassoon & Co. an invoice for ten bales of the contract goods. Notice was given to the plaintiff that the steamer had already arrived and that the goods were...
Cholappa Gattinna Sanna Vs. Ramchandra Anna Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR861
Shah, J.1. In this case an ex parte decree was originally passed against defendant No. 1 in Suit No. 342 of 1901; but that ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was ordered to be retried on the defendant No. 1 furnishing security. Two persons, who are now represented by the present appellants, stood sureties for the amount that the Court, in which the suit was filed, i. e. the Sirsi Court, might find the defendant liable for. Ultimately a decree was passed by the Sirsi Court against the defendant No. 1 on the 22nd March 1907 for a certain amount. The defendant appealed to the District Court, which, subject to some variation, with which we arc not now concerned, confirmed the decree of the trial Court on the 15th April 1908. In second appeal this Court confirmed the decree of the District Court on the 13th February 1911. The decree-holder applied for a transfer of the decree for execution against the sureties, on the 20th December 1913. The sureties contended that the execution as ...
The Karadeniz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR934
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. On the 11th March 1915, I delivered a preliminary judgment in the matter of the SS. Karadeniz. I was then of opinion that I was bound by an Order in Council of the 20th August 1914 to consider the Declaration of London as governing this case, that under Art. 67 of the Declaration the neutral or enemy character of a vessel is determined by the flag she is entitled to fly, and that before the capture the Persian Government had recognised this vessel's right to fly the Persian Flag. That therefore the vessel could not be condemned as lawful prize unless 1 was satisfied that in spite of the apparent validity of the transfer of the vessel to the claimant, the control of the vessel remained in the hand of the Turkish vendors. On the evidence there was considerable justification for my holding that there was an arrangement between the claimant and the vendors that the latter should retain the control of the vessel and use the transfer as a means of getting her to the ne...
Emperor Vs. Sakharam Manaji Vanjari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1054
1. The accused Sakharam Manaji Vanjari was tried for the murder of Vithi, wife of Bhika Gangaram, and was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Nasik. This is an by Balak Hum, Sessions Judge at Nasik. appeal by the Government of Bombay under Section 41.7 against the acquittal.2. Vithi was a young woman aged 18 who lived with her husband Bhika Gangaram at the village of Wadgaon, a few miles from Deolali. Her husband worked as a cartman at Deolali. On the 8th of September, the husband says, Vithi came in the morning to Deolali and left him his food and fodder for his bullocks and a message that she would return in the evening with his dinner. After his work he returned to Deolali Station at 3 P. M. expecting her to arrive. She did not come. He went home and found that she had not returned home after her visit to Deolali that morning. He searched for her that night and next morning without success and at 4 P. M. on the 9th learnt that her corpse had been found in the bed of a nalla between W...
The Midnapur Zemindary Company Ltd. Vs. Uma Charan Mandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR7
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from twenty decrees, dated the 1st June, 1914, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed decrees, dated the 30th September and the 30th November, 1910, of the District Judge of Mangham, which had affirmed decrees, dated the 21st March, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Purlieu. The decrees of the High Court which are the subject of these consolidated appeals dismissed the suits, which were suits for a declaration of title and for has possession by the eviction of the defendants from lands held by them severally in pergunnah Barahabhum and for such other relief's as the plaintiffs might be entitled to.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they were successors in title of Robert Watson & Co., who, on the 8th March, 1885, obtained a paint lease, which included the lands in question, from Rajah Brajakishore Singh, the then Zamindar. Mr. H. Matheson, in whom were then vested the rights of Robert Watson & Co., under the patni lease, on the 25th J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›