Mumbai Court December 1923 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.
Ramkrishna Martoba Kasbekar Vs. Anusuyabai Narayan Shirali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom300; (1924)26BOMLR173
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These are four suits brought by one Ram-krishna Martoba Kasbekar to recover possession of various lauds described in the various plaints. He claimed title through one Narhari Vinayak Dandekar, whom we shall call in future 'Dandekar', and the simple point in all these cases is whether Dandekar had any title which he could pass on to the plaintiff's predecessors. A.11 the plaintiff's suits were dismissed in the trial Court, It appears that they were tried together, and the evidence in connection with all the suits was recorded in Suit No, 166 of 1917. We do not think that was a satisfactory course for the Subordinate Judge to take But apparently no objection was raised by the parties in the various suits, and as a matter of fact there was the one issue referred to above which was common to all the four suits, and if that was decided in favour of the defendants, all the suits were bound to fail.2. In appeal the learned District Judge has with commendable dilige...
Kalianmal Tillockchand Vs. Dharamseyjetha and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.253
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in Appeal No. 57 of 1923 is the owner of a go-down bearing No. 2 situate at Soni Lane. It was in his possession from 1916 to April 1920. On May 1, 1920, the plaintiff first let the premises to the defendants for seven months at a rental of Rs. 18,000, which was equivalent to Rs. 2,571-6-10 a month. On December 1, 1920, he let the go-down to the defendants for a year at a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month. At the end of that period the plaintiff filed a suit in the High Court against the defendants to eject them on the ground that he required the promises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. As the defendants filed a written statement, the hearing of the suit was delayed. When the suit came on for hearing, the plaintiff's circumstances had so changed that he no longer required the premises for his own use and occupation, and he gave up that contention, which was a true contention at the time the suit was tiled. A settlement was then arr...
The Bank of Morvi, Limited Vs. BaerleIn Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom325; (1924)26BOMLR155; 79Ind.Cas.1012
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit arises out of a contract by which the defendant Bank in Bombay agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs in Manchester fifty bales of American bleached yarn double 40 c. i.f. Bombay on certain terms. The contract itself is contained in two telegrams, viz., one dated December 17, 1919, despatched by the Bank to the plaintiffs at Manchester and the second despatched from Manchester by the plaintiffs on December 24, 1919.2. On December 24, 1919, the plaintiffs also wrote to the Bank in Bombay as follows:--We duly received your two telegrams of the 17th instant asking us to place sundry orders at the best possible prices, for which we thank you. We beg to confirm our cable informing you that we had placed.' [Then they set out the price of the goods.] 'We may say that we have booked these prices at the lowest possible prices and earliest shipment. In the present state of our market it is impossible to guarantee delivery, and it must be understood, in case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›