Mumbai Court January 1921 Judgments
ismalji Haji Halimbhai Vs. Ismail Abdul Kadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR543
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for dissolution of partnership and accounts. Admittedly the plaintiff and the first defendant were partners, it is difficult to see how the second and third defendants are proper parties to the suit as they had never been members of the partnership. The plaintiff and Sulemanji Halimbhai were partners in a business at Delagoa in South Africa. With the first defendant they opened a retail business at Chanchai. Sulemanji died in 1902. His death would constitute the date of the dissolution of both the partnerships, It appears that after his death the second defendant as his creditor attached his interest in the Delagoa shop in which the first defendant had no interest, and on the sale of Sulemanji'a interest, in the Delagoa shop, it was purchased by defendant No. 3. Therefore defendants Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have been struck out of the suit as being unnecessary parties.2. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the Co...
Tag this Judgment!ismailji Haji Halimbhai Vs. Ismail Abdul Kadar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom460; (1921)ILR45Bom1228
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for dissolution of partnership and accounts. Admittedly the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were partners. It is difficult to see, how the second and third defendants are proper parties to the suit as they had never been members of the partnership. The plaintiff and Sulemanji Halimbhai were partners in a business at Delagoa in South Africa. With the first defendant they opened a retail business at Chanchai. Sulemanji died in 1902. His death would constitute the date of the dissolution of both the partnerships. It appears that after his death the second defendant as Ms creditor attached his interest in the Delagoa shop in which the 1st defendant had no interest, and on the sale of Sulemanji's interest in the Delagoa shop, it was purchased by defendant No. 3. Therefore defendants Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have been struck out of the suit as being unnecessary parties.2. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Gangadhar Gokhale Vs. Ramchandra Trimbak Kirtane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom66; (1921)23BOMLR537
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the second defendant who was sued together with the first defendant on a joint promissory note for Rs. 1800 can seek to set off against the Bank's claim on the promissory note the amount admittedly due to him from the Bank on his deposit account. Under Section 229 of the Indian Companies Act-In the winding up of an insolvent company the same rules shall prevail and be observed with regard to the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors and to debts provable and to the valuation of annuities and future and contingent liabilities as are in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with respect to the estates of persona adjudged insolvent.2. We have, therefore, to refer to Section 30 of the Provincial Insolvency Act which says:Where there have been mutual dealings between an insolvent and a creditor proving or claiming to prove a debt under this Act, an account shall be taken of what is due from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Motiram Vs. Jairam Sakharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom451; (1921)23BOMLR540
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover on a Khata or account of dealings which had continued between the parties from the 1st March 1913. The business between the parties was that the plaintiff advanced money to the defendant to buy cotton which was ginned and pressed by the plaintiff, the charges being debited to the defendant, and after that the cotton was sent to Bombay through the plaintiff and sold, the plaintiff being credited with the sale proceeds as against the advances made by him to the defendant.2. The only question in this appeal is whether, such being the facts, the account between the parties was mutual, open and current, so that the period of limitation would be fixed by Article 85 of the first Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act instead of by Article 62 or 57, in which case only the items in the account within the last three years before suit could be considered. The question whether a particular account between two parties can be called a mutual, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sabitri ThakuraIn Vs. Savi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR681
Sumner, J.1. The appellant in the present case presented a petition to the High Court at Calcutta on its original civil side in the exercise of its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction under the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, praying for administration, with a copy of his last will annexed, to the property of her late husband. The grant was opposed by the present respondent, the manager of the deceased's property, who had applied to the Court of the District Judge of Bhagulpore for a grant of probate under an earlier will and entered a caveat to the widow's petition. Under the will which she propounded she would be entitled to a life interest in all the property of the deceased; under the earlier will her interest was limited to a mere pittance.2. The late husband of the appellant was a Brahman by caste and a man of considerable means. He is described as having been a man of progressive ideas but intemperate habits. For the first he was excommunicated by the members of his ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ma Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR682
Buckmaster, J.1. The appellant in this case was the defendant in a suit that was instituted by the respondent on February 22, 1913, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell certain oil wells in Burma, as she is what is known as a twinzayo-i.e., one of the twenty-four people to whom the Government is in the habit of annually making grants of oil wells in British Burma. On December 18, 1903, as the settlement of a dispute that was then outstanding between herself and the respondent, the appellant entered into an agreement, through her husband as her attorney, with the respondent, for the sale to him of two sets of oil wells. The first were six out of the twelve sites that she Would obtain for 1902, and the second were three out of the twelve sites that she would obtain for 1903. It appears that so far as the twelve sites for 1902 were concerned the contract was duly satisfied, but with regard to the 1903 sites difficulties arose. On September 21, 1904, four of those sites wer...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshav Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR350
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Certain questions of law which arose in a case before the Chief Presidency Magistrate in the case of Imperator v. Keahav Govind and thirty-three others, have been referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 432, Criminal Procedure Code. On the evidence the Magistrate found that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly.2. The question was whether they had been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, and it is admitted that the crowd was commanded to disperse by Mr. Oliveira, the Presidency Magistrate.3. Under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code, any Magistrate or Officer in charge of a Police Station may command any unlawful assembly to disperse. But the whole of Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which Section 127 appears, was repealed by the Bombay City Police Act IV of 1902, and Sections 127 and 128, Criminal Procedure Code, were replaced by Section 40 of that Act. Section 40, Sub-section (1), makes no mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Nath and Vs. Hukam Chand Nathu Mal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR671
Sumner, J.1. This was a suit, brought to recover the principal amount of four Hundis, to which five persona were made defendants. The plaintiffs were successful in both Courts below, and their Lordships' Board gave special leave to appeal to two of the defendants, but one only, Mr. Gokal Chand, now appears.2. Sundry points connected with the validity of the Hundis and their presentation were pleaded by some of the defendants, but not by the appellant. It has been held in the Courts below, that as a matter of practice he was not entitled to avail himself on appeal of points which had not been raised by him below. Before their Lordships this decision was faintly contested, and they see no reason to doubt or to review it.3. The real issue in the appeal is one of some importance. Joti Mal and his sons, of whom the appellant is one, constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, which carried on a joint ancestral business as moneylenders under the style of Nagar Mal-Joti M...
Tag this Judgment!Bhailal Chaturbhai Patel Vs. Kalyanrai Varajrai Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR547
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. The contract was as follows:-' We have duly made a contract to give you the delivery of two tons of sodium sulphide packed in two cwt. drums of United Alkali's make shipped per SS. City of Delhi at the rate of Rs. 50 per cwt. delivered at Bombay. In case of the steamer meeting with any accident on the way we are not bound to give you the goods, but on arrival of the abovesaid steamer we are bound to give you the delivery of the goods which please note.' The City of Delhi arrived in July 1917. It had not the contract goods on board. The question arises then, whether it was a condition of the contract that the goods should be on the steamer on her arrival, or whether it was an absolute contract to deliver the goods on arrival of the steamer or to be responsible for breach of the contract.2. It seems to me that the learned appellate Judge was right in holding that this c...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhanath Martand Nadgir Vs. Chiko Bhagwantrao Nadgir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom454; (1921)23BOMLR533
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the issue remanded both the lower Courts have held that the defendants are permanent tenants. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the tenancy commenced in 1805. That cannot be disputed on the defendants' own admissions. Both Courts seem to have thought that that was not enough for the plaintiff to prove in order to prevent a presumption under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code arising, They seem to have, thought that although the plaintiff proved the actual commencement of the tenancy, he must also prove what the terms of the tenancy were. Paragraph 2 of Section 83 says nothing whatever about the terms of the tenancy. As I have pointed out in previous cases, it is the tenant, who alleges that he is a permanent tenant, who in the first instance has to prove that, and if he has got no document which gives him a right on the land as a permanent tenant, the presumption is that he is an annual tenant. But if he can show that he has been on the la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »