Mumbai Court August 1922 Judgments
Gandhi Vadilal Chhaganlal Vs. Gandhi Manaklal Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom41(1); 79Ind.Cas.489
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. Defendant No. 2 filed a darkhast in the Court of the First class Sub-Judge at Nadiad to recover Rs. 1,157-14-0 payable to him under the decree in Suit No. 753 of 1915. The learned First-class Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application for execution on the ground that there is no decree, apparently because the necessary Court fees had not been paid. It does not appear from the order made by the learned Judge as to how the payment of the Court-fees under the circumstances of this case was necessary, nor does it appear why this decree, which in form is a complete decree, should not be treated as a decree capable of execution. Apparently, there is no provision with regard to the payment of Court-fees in respect of the sum in question in the decree: and on the facts, so far as they have been elicited in the case and the arguments, it is by no means made dear to us as to whether any Court-fees would be payable at all in respect of this...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shivlingappa Basappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom74; (1922)24BOMLR1150; 73Ind.Cas.812
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. In this case five persons were tried by the Second Class Magistrate of Sholapur and convicted of hurt under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. There was a charge under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, but as there is some difference between the parties as to what the correct interpretation of the charge as framed was, I do not desire to express any opinion as to whether the charge also related to the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, I have referred to the charge to show what the nature of the proceeding was.2. The accused appealed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, who was authorised to hear appeals from the Second Class Magistrates. Without giving any notice to the District Magistrate, he proceeded to decide the appeal, and accused. The case has been brought to our notice on a reference by the District Magistrate, and the learned Government Pleader has appeared to support the contention that the appeal ha...
Tag this Judgment!The Ford Automobiles India Ltd. Vs. the Delhi Motor and Engineering Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom125; (1922)24BOMLR1140
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 43,125 being the price and other charges of twenty motor cars consigned by plaintiffs from Bombay to the defendants at Amballa under a contract between the parties and destroyed by fire in transit.2. Prior to 1920 there was a firm, named Ford Automobiles, which carried on business in Bombay in Ford cars and accessories. The plaintiffs were registered as a limited company early in 1920 and they purchased the business of the said firm. The plaintiff company is now under liquidation and the present suit is brought by the liquidator of the company in the company's name.3. The defendants carry on business as commission agents at Delhi. It seems that there were some dealings between the defendants and the said firm prior to 1920. In March 1920 the plaintiffs employed the defendants as their commission agents for the sale of Ford motors in Delhi and other places. The terms of the agency contract were arranged between the plaint- inV representative and...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Monghibai Vs. Bai Nagubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom130; (1922)24BOMLR1009
Lallubhai Shah Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kanga. It arises out of a suit filed by Bai Nagubai Manglorkar against the executors of the deceased Vasanji Madhavji Thakar, who died on November 21, 1919, possessed of moveable and immoveable property of very large value. The deceased left surviving him a widow and two minor sons. They were also joined as defendants to the suit. It appears that subsequently the sixth defendant who was appointed an administrator pendente lite of the estate of the deceased Vasanji in the testameatary proceedings relating to his will was added as a party. The suit was filed on the basis that the plaintiff was in the exclusive keeping of the deceased Vasanji since the year 1913; and that she had a daughter born to her by him. She alleged that the deceased had left his usual residence at Vadgadi and had come to reside with the plaintiff in her house at Girgaum and that he continued to reside there until the day prior to his deat...
Tag this Judgment!Jivraj Laloobhai Patel Vs. Bhagvandas Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom66; (1922)24BOMLR1037
Shah, Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. An ex parte decree was passed on February 24, 1921, against the firm of Raghunathdas Mulji. The only partner of the firm that was served was Vachharaj. A summons was taken out by the assignees of the original decree-holder Keshavji Ramji against the executors of Raghunathdas Premji for leave to execute the decree against his estate on the ground that the deceased Raghunathdas Premji was a partner in the firm of Raghunathdas Mulji. Raghunathdas died on April 23, 1919, leaving a will dated February 7, 1919. The present appellant obtained probate on October 24, 1921. It appears that no notice of the suit was given to partners other than Vachharaj.2. It was contended before the learned Judge who heard the summons that the original decree-holder Keshavji had knowledge of the death of Raghunathdas Premji, at the date of the suit, the suit having been filed in August 1919, and further that even if he had no such knowledge, u...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Balkrishna Vs. Waman Gopal Wadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom85; (1922)24BOMLR1029
Shah, Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. A plot of ground, which is shown in the plan, was originally owned by one Balkrishna. He left four sons, Shantaram, Vasantrao, Janardan and Shivshankar, and at a partition which was effected among the four brothers in the year 1916, this plot was divided into four parts. The plot marked A in the plan fell to the share of Shantaram, the plot marked B was assigned to Vasantrao, the plot marked C was assigned to Janardan and the plot marked D was assigned to Shivshankar. There was a common passage left which is shown in the plan and which is marked E F H G. There is no special provision in the decree based upon the award relating to the partition, but it appears from the descriptions of the various plots given in the Schedules that the said land was reserved for the common passage. On September 19, 1916, Janardan conveyed his interest in the plot D to the present plaintiffs, and on September 28, 1916, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Najan Ahmed Haji Ali Vs. Salemahomed Peermahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom113; (1922)24BOMLR998
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants under several contracts. The defendants counter-claim a larger sum than that claimed by the plaintiffs as damages for failure on the part, of the plaintiffs to deliver the balance of the goods.2. The plaintiffs deal in lime. The defendants are building contractors. The plaintiffs allege that they sold and delivered to the defendants lime under the following contracts, viz :-(1) contract dated April 16, 1916 ( Ex. A ), for the supply of lime for the Navatia Flour Mills at the rate of Rs. 2-13-3 per candy;(2) a verbal contract entered into some months after the date of Ex. A, for the supply of lime for the Planet and Indo-China Mills at Rs. 2-11-6 per candy;(3) contract dated April 6, 1917 (Ex. B), for the supply of lime between 560 and 700 candies as ordered by the defendants from time to time for the Indo-China Mills at the rate of Rs. 3-6-3 per candy; and(4) c...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanbai Rustamji Dadachanji Vs. Cawasji Edalji Dadachanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom96; (1922)24BOMLR1124
Shah, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kanga. The Originating Summons which has given rise to this appeal was taken out by Ratanbai, the widow of Rustomji Edaljee Dadachanjee, for the construction of a will dated February 10, 1913, made by her husband, who died on July 17, 1913. When he made his will in February his wife was pregnant and she gave birth to a son on May 27, 1913. The infant died on July 2, 1914. The defendant No. 1 is the brother of the deceased Rustomji and the sole executor under the will. Defendant No. 2, who was subsequently joined, is the daughter of Rustomji by another wife who had predeceased him. The defendant No. 1 took out probate of the will on October 3, 1913. The probate with a copy of the original will which is written in the Gujarati language and its translation is marked Ex. A. The questions that were raised in the summons were these:-(1) Whether under the will of Rustomji Edalji the bequest of the residue of his estate to hi...
Tag this Judgment!R. A. Arunachela Ayyar Vs. C. Subbaramiah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom60
Schwabe, C.J.1. I have expressed myself on this subject in fairly strong language before and I propose to do so again.2. When for some reason a man has not attended a case in Court and there is no sufficient explanation of his absence, the case, by reason of his absence, is allowed to go ex parte. If he comes to Court afterwards and asks that his case may be restored to file, the question to be considered by the Court is not whether by some human possibility, being wise after the event, he could not have got there in time or whether a man who studied his railway guide a little better, would not have got in another train or taken another route, but whether a man honestly intended to be in Court and did his best though, in his own stupid way, to get there in time, 'and once the Court is satisfied, as was the fact in this case, that the man did try to get there and that he would have got there in time but for the intervention of an inevitable accident for which he was in no way responsibl...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Allu Ramachandra Ayyar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom54
Schwabe, C.J.1. The Official Assignee in the insolvency of N. B. Baluswami Ayyar and Narasimha Ayyar brought this suit against the minor sons of N. B. Baluswami Ayyar to set aside a deed of partition executed by that insolvent in favour of his minor sons. The learned Judge Kumaraswami Sastri, J., held that the deed was fraudulent and void as against the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee asked for declarations that the interests of the minors in the property should be vested in him and that the possession of all the properties included in the deed should be delivered to him. These declarations were refused and hence this appeal. It has, however, been admitted before us that the declaration that the shares of the sons had vested was rightly refused and the only question remaining for our decision is whether possession ought to have been ordered to be delivered to the Official Assignee.2. This involves a consideration of the rights of the Official Assignee to joint family property,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›