Mumbai Court July 1922 Judgments
Haji Oosman Haji Ismail Vs. Haroon Salleh Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom148; (1922)24BOMLR978
Lallubhai Shah Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Crump. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs to enforce an agreement to sell certain immoveable properties to the defendant for Rs. 1,55,000. The defendant agreed to buy the properties in suit and paid Rs. 5000 as earnest money to the plaintiffs, The vendors had agreed to make out a marketable title. It is not necessary to refer to other terms of the agreement. Two of these properties had been previously purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant, and there was no difficulty as to the title to those properties. The third property had been bought by the plaintiffs from one Fakir Mahomed, a Cutchi Memon, who conveyed the property to them on April 29, 1920, on behalf of himself and his minor brother. That conveyance is Ex. E. The property belonged to the father of Fakir Mahomed who had bought it in 1884 from one Hajee Adam Oosman Nurani. That conveyance is Ex, B.2. It appears fr...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Oosman Haji Ismail Vs. Haroon Saleh Mahomed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom369
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., A.C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Crump. The suit oat of which the appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs to enforce an agreement to sell certain immoveable properties to the defendant for Rs. 1,55,000. The defendant agreed to buy the properties in suit and paid Rs. 5,000 as earnest money to the plaintiffs. The vendors had agreed to make out a marketable title. It is not necessary to refer to other terms of the agreement. Two of these properties had been previously purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant, and there was no difficulty as to the title to those properties. The third property had been bought by the plaintiffs from one Fakir Mahomed, a Cutchi Memon, who conveyed the property to them on April 29, 1920, on behalf of him-.self and his minor brother. That conveyance is Exhibit E. The property belonged to the father of Fakir Mahomed who had bought it in 1884 from one Hajee Adam Oosman Nuran. That conveyance is Exhibit B.2. It...
Tag this Judgment!Dadabhai Framji Cama Vs. Cowasji Dorabji Panday
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom177; (1922)24BOMLR1111
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an originating summons taken out by the trustees for the construction of two deeds, one of August 13, 1879, and the other of July 19, 1888. The original summons stated the questions in a general form; but the questions for decision are stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Kanga, and we have ordered the summons to be so amended as to indicate in terms the points which we have to decide. On a further hearing of this appeal, we have directed further amendment of the summons, and as a result of that two more questions have been raised.2. It will be convenient to show in a tabular form the relationship of the parties interested in these questions:- Dhanabaiji (died in 1891). | Rustomji (dided in 1893) married Maneckbai | (died in 1897); --------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Framji (died in Ratanbai Edulji Gulbai Byramji 1908)=married (daughter) (died (daughter) (died in 1886; Havabai (died (deft. 2....
Tag this Judgment!The Government Pleader Vs. Vinayak Balvant Chaukar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1049; 76Ind.Cas.78
Shah, Acting C.J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader under our disciplinary jurisdiction for action being taken against the three opponents. The three opponents are: (1) Vinayak Balwant Chaukar, District Pleader, (2) Kundanmal Sobhachand Firodia, District Pleader, and (3) Chintaman Mohiniraj Saptarishi, High Court Vakil, all practising in the District of Ahmednagar. The first opponent was enrolled in May 1883, and is an old pleader holding a Sanad of this Court. The other two opponents Nos. 2 and 3 received their Sanads in 1910 and 1911 respectively. The allegations against them, which are set forth in the petition and which are not disputed, are that on October 24, 1921, while Gangadharrao Deshpande and the Ali brothers were on their trial at Dharwar and Karachi respectively a meeting was held at Ahmednagar and was presided over by opponent No. 1, and a resolution congratulating the convicts in the Dharwar Sessions Case and Gangadharrao Deshpande and the Ali brothers w...
Tag this Judgment!N. Buch and Co. Vs. Gordhandas Mavji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom92; (1922)24BOMLR991
Mulla, J.1. This suit arises out of a contract (Ex. B), dated January 31, 1920, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendants agreed to buy five cases of black and coloured and worsted Venetian at the price of 8 Section 6d. per yard f.b.h. The goods were to be shipped 'in two lots monthly from October approximately.' The suit is to recover the loss on re-sale of two out of the five cases and damages for breach of the contract in respect of the remaining three cases.2. The plaintiffs carry on business as commission agents and merchants in piece goods. The defendants at all times material to this suit carried on business in partnership in piece-goods in the name of Laxmidas Gordhandas. Two out of the said cases arrived in Bombay per s. s. City of London on August 10, 1920. On August 17, 1920, the plaintiff sent an invoice and also shipment samples in respect of the said two cases to the defendants. On September 28, 1920, the plaintiffs sent an invoice and shipment samples in r...
Tag this Judgment!Shivbasappa Lagmappa Manoli Vs. Nilava Satapa Manoli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom17; (1922)24BOMLR1162
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. [After dealing with questions of fact and holding that Basvanta was the last to die and that the factum of adoption was proved, the judgment proceeded:-] In the lower Court no question was raised as to the effect of the finding that Basvanta and Lagmappa were members of a joint family of whom Lagmappa died first and Basvanta afterwards. It was accepted that the result of that finding would be to negative the plaintiff's claim; and in the memorandum of appeal before us no such point as has been raised in the course of the argument has been taken. After the filing of the appeal, however, the decision in Yadao v. Namdeo (1921) L.R. 48 IndAp 513; 24 Bom. L.R. 609 has rendered it possible for the appellant to raise the contention that the adoption would have the effect of divesting the estate vested in defendants Nos. 2 and 8 on the death of Basvanta. It is urged that, though, according to the decisions of this Court, the plaintiff would have no case, in view o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hasrat Mohani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR885; 75Ind.Cas.299
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad.2. The accused in this case was charged in respect of three speeches : two of these speeches were made by him at a meeting of the Indian National Congress, and the third was made by him as the President of the All-India Moslem League in December last at Ahmedabad. In respect of the first two speeches he was charged under Section 124A, and in respect of the third under Sections 124A and 121, Indian Penal Code. The offences under Section 124A were triable with the aid of assessors and the offence under Section 121 was triable by a Jury in that district. He was accordingly tried by the Sessions Judge and a Jury in respect of the offence under Section 121 and with the aid of the jurors as assessors as regards the other offences, The Jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty' under Section 121 and, as assessors, they were of opinion that the accused was not guilty un...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal Vs. Collector of Moradabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR655
Buckmaster, J.1. On November 20, 1911, Maulvi Maqbulur-Rahman executed a mortgage of considerable property in the district of Meerut in favour of Sahu Prashadi Lal to secure repayment of Rs. 10,000 and interest. The mortgagor subsequently executed several transfers of the mortgaged property, some by way of mortgage and some apparently by way of absolute transfer.2. The appellant claims under one of such transfers, but the, extent and character of his interest is nowhere stated, nor need it be investigated as it is admittedly sufficient to support the appeal He contends that the mortgage of November 20, 1911, was not properly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act XVI of 1908, and is consequently invalid.3. The respondent is the Manager of the Court of Wards, acting on behalf of the three infant children of the mortgagee, who died on February 8, 1912.4. That the mortgage required to be registered is plain. The only question is, was registration effec...
Tag this Judgment!Ambaji Balwantrao Mane Vs. Hanmantrao Bajirao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR924
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The petitioner before us was allowed to sue as a pauper in the trial Court, the order permitting him to sue as a pauper having been made on June 12, 1920. Subsequently an application was made by him for the amendment of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order allowing the amendment and directing the costs of the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff in cash within a week. The costs, we are informed, would amount to about Rs. 500. The plaintiff who was found to be a pauper was unable to pay that sum. The resuit was that on July 9, 1921, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit 'under the inherent powers of the Court.' It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the order directing him to pay the costs in cash after he was found to be a pauper was wholly improper. The contention of the applicant appears to us to be unanswerable. The order directing him to pay the costs in cash should never have been made having regard to the finding t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Bharati Vs. Narasinha Bharati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR925
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is urged that as this Court set aside the decree of the lower Court and sent back the case to the trial Court for disposal according to law, it is a final order within the meaning of Section 109(a), Civil Procedure Code, and that as the subject-matter of the suit and of the appeal is over Rs. 10,000 in value, the applicant is entitled as of right to a certificate under Section 110. The trial Court in this case passed a decree upon a certain compromise which was arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. There was an appeal from the order directing a decree to be passed in terms of the compromise under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (m), Civil Procedure Code, to this Court. This Court in the first instance sent down certain issues to the trial Court for findings; and after the findings were returned to this Court, the order under appeal was set aside and the lower Court was dir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »