Mumbai Court August 1920 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.
Charandas Chaturbhuj Vs. Chhaganlal Pitambardas and Alibhoy Khusal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1169
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defend-nuts for damages for broach of contract because the defendants failed to take delivery of 100 bales of cotton which they had contracted to buy for the September delivery 1918. On the 8th January 1920 leave was given to the defendants to issue a Third Party notice against one Alibhoy Khushal. The defend. ants claimed to be. indemnified by Alibhoy Khushal in respect of the breach of the contract with the plaintiff, because Alibhoy surveyed the said bales and failed to take delivery of the same from the plaintiff under the delivery order which had been sent to him. The Third Party entered an appearance on the 8th of March. The defendant then took out a summons for directions. The Third Party proceedings have been introduced into this Court by rules, while the Code of Civil Procedure makes no mention , at all of such procedure.2. Rule 130 is as follows:-If a third party appears pursuant to the third party notice, ...
Lakhmiram Kevalram Bhatt Vs. Punamchand Pitamber
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom128; (1920)22BOMLR1173
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this appeal is an insolvent who has filed his petition under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, in Bombay on the 27th November 1914. As far as this Court is concerned, the insolvent proceedings came to an end on 'the 1st of October 1918, when the insolvent got his discharge. One of the opposing creditors mentioned in the schedule, the respondent in this case, has obtained a decree for Rs. 2834-4-0 in the Court of Sirohi State, in respect of the debt for costs in Bombay High Court Suit No. 58I of 1911. In the insolvency proceedings it had been alleged that the insolvent had succeeded as the heir of his brother to certain property in the Sirohi State, but he was able to prove that he was separate from his brother and that his brother's widow had adopted the insolvent's sou. It would appear that the respondent still hopes to be able to attach that property. The appellant then took out a rule in this Court calling upon the respondent to show c...
Bhimaji Ramchandra Wadwadgi Vs. Bhimabai Hiroji Sanagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom122; (1921)23BOMLR62; 61Ind.Cas.764
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal under the Letters Patent are these: One Hanma was the original owner of the land (Survey No. 142) now in dispute. He sold it to Nagappa in 1885. Nagappa mortgaged it along with other properties to Mudiappa in 1888. It was a simple mortgage. The mortgage was assigned to Basappa, the nephew of Mudiappa at a family partition. Basappa filed Suit No. 574 of 1900 to enforce the mortgage against Nagappa and two other coparceners. Kalappa was joined as defendant No. 4, as it was asserted by Nagappa that he had sold to him the equity of redemption in the land now in dispute. Kalappa did not appear to contest the plaintiff's claim in that suit. Finally, on the 20th April 1901, a compromise was arrived at between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in that suit It is not necessary to detail the terms of the compromise it is enough to state that a part of the property in that suit was conveyed to the then plaintiff that a certain a...
Lakhmiram Kevalram Bhatt Vs. Poonamchand Pitamber
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom550
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this appeal is an insolvent who has filed his petition under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, in Bombay on the 27th November 1914. As far as this Court is concerned, the insolvency proceedings came to an end on the 1st of October 1918, when the insolvent got his discharge. One of the opposing creditors mentioned in the schedule, the respondent in this case, has obtained a decree for Rs. 2,831-4-0 in the Court of Sirohi State, in respect of the debt for costs in Bombay High Court Suit No. 581 of 1911. In the insolvency proceedings it had been alleged that the insolvent had succeeded as the heir of his brother to certain property in the Sirohi State, but he was able to prove that he was separate from his brother and that the brother's widow had adopted the, insolvent's son. It would appear that the respondent still hopes to be able to attach that property. The appellant then took out a rule in this Court calling upon the respondent to show...
The Bombay Municipality Vs. M. Damodar Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom214; (1921)23BOMLR35; 60Ind.Cas.571
Setalvad, J.1. In the year 1917, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay adopted in its final form, a scheme for the widening of Churchgate Street and Armenian Lane within the Fort of the City of Bombay and for the development of that portion of the Fort, which was under their consideration ever since 1914, and determined for that purpose to acquire certain properties abutting on those streets. Having failed to acquire the properties by private agreement with the owners thereof, it was considered necessary to have resort to the provisions of Section 91 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act. The Municipal Commissioner with the approval of the Standing Committee moved the Government of Bombay to acquire these properties on behalf of the Corporation under the Land Acquisition Act. The Government of Bombay, thereupon, on the 23rd of July 1917, notified the acquisition of five plots in Armenian Lane called plots I to V (Exhibit A). On the 1st of December 1917 the Governor in Council i...
Ramchandra Balwant Athale Vs. Balaji Ganesh Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom48; (1920)22BOMLR1452
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain land. His suit was rejected in the trial Court, but the learned appellate Judge gave him a decree for possession of the lands comprised in Group No. 1 including the strips enclosed in a red line (Exhibit 77) consisting of the Survey Numbers S6t out at page 2 of the print. This land originally belonged to Laxman and Vithal. Laxman died in 1895 and Vithal in 1903 But before Vithal died one Chinto got possession in execution by mistake of the plaint lands as far back as 1893. After Vithal's death Bhagirthibai, his sister, was put on the record to continues the proceedings and eventually an order was passed that she should be put in possession of the plaint property, and, on the 14th of October 1903, she actually got possession. This suit was filed on the 11th of October 1915 and as it is admitted that the plaintiff was the nearer heir to Vithal than Bhagirthibai, from whom the defendant claims, there can be no...
ichalal Jagmohandas Vs. Nago Sina Patim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom462; (1921)23BOMLR60; 60Ind.Cas.589
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover joint possession of the plaint land. Plaintiff's father purchased a joint half share in Survey No. 165, Pot No. 1, with other property from Bhiku Dharma and Anu Bhiku on the 22nd of August 1903. On the same day Bhiku and Anu passed a lease in favour of Jagmohandas in respect of the property mentioned in Exhibit 19 for a term of one year and agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 42. The term of the rent-note expired on the 22nd of August 1904. On the 5th of March 1913, Bhiku Dharma, Hari Dharma, Anu Bhiku and Sakharam Hari, sold the entire land, Survey No. 165, Pot No. 1, to the defendant. This suit was filed on the 28th of August 1917. It has been dismissed in both Courts on the ground that Article 139 of the Indian Limitation Act applies and that when the term of the rent-note expired on the 22nd of August 1904, Bhiku and Anu held adversely to the landlord, and there was no evidence in the case from which a fresh tenancy could be infer...
Govinda Krishna SaThe Vs. Hanmaya Lingaya Fulmali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom65; (1920)22BOMLR1450
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an injunction. Such a suit comes within Section 7, para (iv), of the Court Fees Act and the Court fee had to be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought was valued in the plaint, which valuation the plaintiff was entitled to fix himself.2. He valued the claim at Rs. 10 but also added another valuation of Rs. 500 for purposes of jurisdiction. The memorandum of appeal was valued in the same way. The District Judge holding that under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act there could not be two valuations in a suit of this nature, one for Court fees and another for jurisdiction, ordered the plaintiff to pay the balance of Court fees as if the claim had been valued at Rs. 500. On the plaintiff failing to comply with this order the appeal was rejected.3. As the plaintiff was entitled under clause 7 of the Court Fees Act to value his claim at Rs. 10 it was wholly unnecessary for the plaintiff to fix any value for the purpose...
Laxman Madhavrao Jahagirdar Vs. Bhagvansingh Narsingbhau Navalurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom409; (1921)23BOMLR55; 60Ind.Cas.580
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Narsingbhati was the owner of the suit property. On the 8th of January 1904 he entered into an agreement with the defendant in this suit to sell the property at the rate of Rs. 175 an acre and received Rs. 100 as earnest money and agreed to pass a regular sale-deed Thereafter he was attacked by plague and died before the sale-deed could be executed. On the 30th of September his widow executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant putting him in possession of the property. The consideration for the suit property at the rate of Rs. 175 an acre was Rs. 1,367. Rs. 100 having been paid, the balance left was Rs. 1,267. The consideration paid by the defendant is said to have been made up as follows. He took over the mortgage due by the deceased in favour of one Anandibai for Rs. 1,000 and the interest then due amounting to Rs. 215 and a debt of Rs. 75 due to Government on account of tagavi making altogether Rs. 1,290, rather more than the actual balance due. T...
Laxmanrao Alias Dadasaheb Madhavrao Jahagirdar Vs. Bhagwansingh Adopti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom434
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Narsingbhau was the owner of the suit property. On the 8th of January 1904, he entered into an agreement with the defendant in this suit to sell the property at the rate Rs. 175 an acre and received Rs. 1.00 as earnest money and agreed to pass a regular sale deed. Thereafter he was attacked by plague and died before the sale deed could be executed. On the 30th of September his widow executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant putting him in possession of the property. The consideration for the suit property at the rate of Rs. 175 an acre was Rs. 1,367. Rs. 100 having been paid, the balance left was Rs. 1,267. The consideration paid by the defendant is said to have been made up as follows. He took over the mortgage due by the deceased in favour of one Anandibai for Rs. 1,000 and the interest then due amounting to Rs. 215 and a debt of Rs. 75 due to Government on account of tagavi making altogether Rs. 1,290, rather more than the actual balance due. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »