Mumbai Court July 1921 Judgments
Uttamram Vithaldas Vs. Thakordas Parshottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR911
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover the balance due in Samvat 1973 from the defendant and the pried of goods supplied is Samvats 1973 and 1974, and for a further amount of Rs. 35 odd. The plaint was first presented on the 2brd October 1920 signed by Vithaldas, a servant of the plaintiff, while the Vakilpatra of the Vakil was also signed by Vithaldas. When these facts came to the notice of the Judge on the 3rd December 1920, he found that the plaint was not properly signed and not properly presented, by the plaintiff, and that the pleader presenting the plaint was not duly authorized, and, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. We think he was right in holding that the plaint was not duly presented and not duly signed, as the plaintiff made uo effort to prove that Vithaldas was his recognized agent trading on his behalf while he was away from the jurisdiction. But we think that if the plaintiff had applied to be allowed to sign the plaint and present it on that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasraj Bastimal Vs. Sadashiv Mahadev Walekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1923Bom169; (1921)23BOMLR976
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated the 17th March 1918 for Rs. 784. The defendant's pleader said that the defendant was a minor having been born on the 4th January 1899 his mother having been appointed his certificated guardian. The following issues were raised: (1) Whether the defendant was a minor; (2) whether the promissory note was passed during his minority; (3) if so, can it be enforced. The plaintiff swore that the defendant, when the promissory note was passed told him that he was 21 or 21| years old. He was conducting a shop and filed suits in his own name. In cross examination he said: ' The defendant has a mother. I did Hot inquire if his mother had obtained a certificate. I did not consult his mother for this debt.' On that evidence the Judge came to the conclusion that; the defendant was a minor at the date of the suit, and that, therefore, the promissory note could not be enforced. The quest...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Motichand Vs. Ganpat Lahanu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR995
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Reference by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar. The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendants nine items which stood debited in the Khata of the defendants in the plaintiff's books and which still remained un discharged after giving credit for the amounts paid by the defendants in discharge of the previous items of debit. It seems clear that the suit really was for the balance due on an account. The question was raised whether the Court-fees were not chargeable as if each item was a distinct subject, so that the aggregate amount of fees should be calculated as if a separate suit had been filed for each item.2. In the case of Ramchandra v. Appaji (1887) P.J. 271 the plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 63-10-6 as the balance due to him by the defendant on a Khata, alleging that the amount claimed represented the aggregate sum payable in respect of seven separate transactions which took place on different dates. The Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Jina Jibhai Baria Vs. Mathur Jibhai Baria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1016
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this suit in the Mamlatdar's Court averring that the defendant had dispossessed him of three acres and seven gunthas of land out of Survey No. 51. The order of the Mamlatdar was that the plaintiff should be put in joint possession of the whole of Survey No. 51 with the defendant. It has been contended that that order was without jurisdiction. We have been referred to the decisions of this Court in Keso Dinkar v. Moro Sakharam (1883) P.J. 120 and Krishna v. Gopala(1890) P.J. 316 which decided that the Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to award joint possession in proceedings under the Act III of 1876. The Mamlatdar in making this order relied upon the case of Bai Jamna v. Bai Jadav I.L.R (1879) Bom. 168. But the question decided there was one of an entirely different character. The only ground on which we could hold that the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction would be that jurisdiction had been granted by Bombay Act II of 1906. The explanation to Sect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›