Mumbai Court February 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.
Govind Chintaman Bhat Vs. Kachubhai Gulabchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom28; (1923)25BOMLR503; 73Ind.Cas.978
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On September 16, 1900, Rs. 10,000 passed from the firm of Chhaganlal Vakhatchand to the firm of Kachubhai Gulabchand ; and in the accounts of Chhaganlal Vakhatchand it is shown that Rs. 10,000 were credited to Kachubhai. Interest at three per cent, was credited up to the 3rd of Aso Vad of the Samvat year 1957, and the total of principal and interest was carried on into the account of the year 1958, and it would appear that the account continued, interest at three per cent, being added at the end of each year, till 1908. Nothing further happened until in November 1918 in execution of a decree against Nagindas, the only son of the original depositor Chhaganlal Vakhatchand, the debt due by the firm of Kachubhai Gulabchand was put up for sale and bought by one Krishnaji Bhat for Rs. 120. In October 1919, Krishnaji assigned his right to the debt to one Narain Krishna for Rs. 1,000 and the present plaintiff bought it from Narain Krishna for Rs, 1,100 on November 4...
Shankar Ramchandra Kulkarni Vs. Ramchandra Annaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR437; 73Ind.Cas.415
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge who pronounced judgment in terms of the award, Exhibit 22. One Gurunath Balaji died on September 30, 1918, leaving a will. Probate proceedings with regard to the will were pending in the District Court at Dharwar instituted by the first defendant, in whose favour the will in question had been passed. On January 5, 1919, the parties concerned with the will executed a submission paper, Exhibit 28. What was submitted to the arbitrators was the dispute with regard to the estate of Gurunath Balaji. The arbitrators made an award, which is Exhibit 22, by which, after it was recited that in order that the two parties should not ruin themselves unnecessarily by going to litigation in respect of this dispute existing between them with reference to the estate of Gurunath Balaji, the disputes were referred, various properties were allotted to the disputing parties. Clearly, although the submission paper was in...
Totaram Chunilal Shet Vs. Chhoturam Motiram Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom299; (1923)25BOMLR446; 73Ind.Cas.454
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this appeal is clearly covered by the decision in Trimbak v. Ramchandra I.L.R. (1899) 23 Bom. 723 : 1 Bom. L.R. 215 where it was held that payment of sale proceeds into Court is not sufficient to constitute them money received by the decree holder. That decision was under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The same words are used in Order XXI, Rule 89, of the present Code. As long as the Legislature has decided that only money received by the decree-holder can be taken into account, then it is not for the Court to say that money paid into Court, and not put into the pocket of the decree-holder, is money received by him. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs....
Hiraji and anr. Vs. Vishnu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom429; 79Ind.Cas.186
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover posssesion of the suit lands alleging they belonged to their great grandfather Kondu. Kondu left two sons Moru and Chandra. There was a separation whereby plaintiffs' father Guna Moru got a half share, the other half going to the descendants of Chandra now represented by the defendants.2. The plaint states that in 1885 plaintiffs' father gave his share to Haridas Ramdas by passing a mortgage-deed in the form of a sale for Rs. 1,000. Possession remained with plaintiffs father. Defendant's father also gave his share to Haridas on the same condition, retaining possession. In 1886, plaintiffs father having died, their mother, defendant and Haridas came to an arrangement by which it was found that the amount due by both branches was Rs. 5,000 and the defendants passed instalment-bond for that amount for the plaintiffs and themselves, keeping all the land in their possession and giving a portion of C.S. No. 24 and the whole of C.S. No. 17...
Ganpati Shankrappa Hegde and ors. Vs. Krishnappa Shivram Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom159; 73Ind.Cas.204
1. The plaintiff sued for possession of the suit property against the defendants after cancellation of the alienations made with respect to the same by the defendant No. 1's father, Paramaya bin Subhaya Hegde, during her minority. The property belonged to one Shivram Hegde who died leaving a widow, defendant No. 1, and no son. On the 22nd August 1919 the widow adopted the plaintiff. The first question raised in the suit was, whether the adoption had, as a matter of fact, taken place. That had been found against the plaintiff but the lower Court held the adoption had taken place. Then it was alleged that the adoption of the plaintiff was illegal as he was the only son, and so could not be given in adoption by a widow, his father at that time being dead. However, it was decided in Krishna v. Paramshri 25 B. 537 : 3 Bom. L.R. 73 that a Hindu widow pan make a valid gift of, her only son in adoption. Mr. Justice Ranade giving judgment said: 'Now that the recent decisions have established th...
Hirachand Amichand Gujar Vs. Nemchand Fulchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom403; (1923)25BOMLR445; 73Ind.Cas.465
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The firm of Jivraj Amichand entered into contracts for the purchase of specified goods at various rates as evidenced by the sale-notes from the Laxmi Mills. Then the same firm contracted to sell the goods bought under the aforesaid agreements to the defendant firm, Nemchand Gulabchand, at a profit. Jivraj Amichand complained that the defendant would not take delivery and purported to sell the goods against the defendant. The result vas that owing to the refusal of the defendant to take delivery there appeared to be a loss of Rs. 13,000 odd to Jivraj Amichand. It was open then to Jivraj Amichand to file a suit against the defendant for damages for breach of the contract, Instead of so doing, Hemchand, one of the partners of the said firm, purported to transfer to the plaintiff the right to recover damages.2. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court on the ground that the defendant did not break the contract. When it came before us in appeal it seems to us ob...
Ramchandra Narayan Datar Vs. T.V. Nipunge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom49; (1923)25BOMLR499; 73Ind.Cas.379
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Balkrishna Vishnu Ghole was adjudged an insolvent on September 6, 1919, by the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge, Poona, in Insolvency Application No. 9 of 1917. On February 12, 1921, he presented an application to the First Class Subordinate Judge asking that the adjudication might be annulled. That application was dismissed on February 21, 1921. It was first claimed that the petitioner ought not to have been adjudicated an insolvent. But the Court, held that he had been rightly adjudicated. Then it was urged that it had been proved that the debts of the insolvent had been paid in full, but it was held that he was not entitled to an order of annulment on that ground. The Judge said:There is no evidence on the point. Neither the petitioner nor the creditors appeared in the witness-box. The petition admits that the mortgage debts are not paid and that some personal debts are not paid. The petitioner asks the Court to receive a sum of Rs. 1728 to pay the...
Talakchand Bheraji Vs. Atmaram Keshav Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom58; (1923)25BOMLR818
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The facts leading up to this suit are as follows : The plaintiff's who are four brothers executed a deed on May 30, 1907, purporting to convey the suit property to one Ramchandra Ganesh for Rs. 99. The sale-deed provided that if the vendors returned the sum of Rs. 99 with compound interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem within one year the vendee should return the property and pass a legal document for the same with possession.2. On August 12, 1910, the plaintiff's executed a sale-deed of the same property in favour of one Kesrichand Hiraji. The consideration was Rs. 150 which was made up by paying Rs. 72-8-0 the balance owing under the transaction of May 30, 1907, to Ramchandra and Rs. 77-8-0 to the plaintiffs, who still remained in possession. Kesrichand died leaving a minor son Fatehchand.3. On August 10, 1912, Navalmal Hiraji, as guardian for the minor, conveyed the property to Talakchand Bheraji for Rs. 399 with possession. The four plaintiffs ...
Maharajah of Jeypore Vs. Sri Rajah Gangaraju Bahadur and Eight ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom726
1. P. Somasundram for petitioner.---Under Rule XIV of the present rules relating to these Agency tracts and under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, the High Court has power to transfer any case from the file of the Agency Courts to its own file. The present Rule XIV confers upon the High Court appellate jurisdiction over all decrees in original suits passed by the Agency Commissioner. Hence the High Court is a superior Court to the other Court. Section 107 is thus satisfied. He referred to the old Rules XXI and XXII and the present Rules II (3) and XIV. Whatever differences of opinion on this point might have existed under the old rules as disclosed by Maharajah of Jeypore v. Papayyamma I.L.R. (1900) Mad., 329 (see especially Benson, J.'s, judgment) the present rules clearly give the power to transfer. Maharajah of Jeypore v. Papayyamma(1) is not now good law.2. Y. Suryanarayana for respondents.---There is no power of transfer under Section 107. Rule XIV has given only a powe...
Sakharam Balwant Peshwe and anr. Vs. Laxman Timbak Purandare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom428; 79Ind.Cas.200
1. The plaintiffs filed this suit praying for various reliefs with regard to an ancient temple of Shri Martand Dev which had been managed by a Committee of five trustees since the year 1841. They asked the sanction of the Collector under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the institution of the suit for the purpose of obtaining the five reliefs set out in the application. The Collector replied that sanction was only given to the institution of a suit for the specific purpose of settling a scheme. In spite of that order the plaint was filed on the 12th February 1921 asking, in addition to the prayer for a settlement of the scheme, for the other reliefs for which sanction had been refused by the Collector. That, no doubt, was very improper. It did not follow on that account that the plaintiffs suit, so far as it was covered by the Collector's sanction, was not entitled to be heard on its merits. Therefore, the appeal must be allowed and the case must be remained to the District J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »