Mumbai Court March 1923 Judgments
Ratanchand Dayachand Vs. Damji Dharsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom399; (1923)25BOMLR468; 73Ind.Cas.474
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the respondents for An order directing the appellants to deposit such further security for the costs of the appeal as the Court may think fit, on the ground that the costs of the appeal will run into thousands of rupees beyond the 500 rupees deposited by the appellants under High Court Rule 736 when the appeal was filed.2. A stay of execution of the decree of the lower Court was obtained on the appellants giving security to the extent of Rs. 35,000.3. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and it has been contended that Order XLI, Rule 10, does not apply to such appeals, and even if it did, that High Court Rule 736 is inconsistent with it and governs the case. The authority relied upon is Behram Jung (Nawab) v. Haji Sultan Ali Shustry I.L.R. (1912) 37 Bom. 572 : 14 Bom. L.R. 1106.It does not seem to me to matter much whether we hold that Order XLI, Rule 10, is not applicable, as the learned Chief Justice in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Versey and Co. Vs. Amarchand Madhavji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom90; (1923)25BOMLR713
Marten, J.1. In this suit I have now to determine preliminary issue No. 4.2. If that issue should be answered in the negative, then I have to give general directions as to how the trial of the remaining issues Nos. 5 to 13 should be proceeded with, having regard to the fact that all the suit transactions took place in Rangoon and that substantially all the witnesses and documents are in Rangoon. [His Lordship then referred to the disposal of the first three issues and proceeded:]3. To explain issue No. 4 I should state the following facts. The suit is brought by Jethalal Versey & Co. against Amarchand Madhavji & Co. (a) for an account of the dealings between the parties for the Samvat years 1975 and 1976 (1918-20) and for payment of what may be found due on that account ; (6) for immediate payment of the amount appearing to the credit of the plaintiffs in the defendants' books and for production and full inspection of such books; and (c) for an order on the defendants to hand over the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vamanacharya Ramacharya Vs. Govind Madhavacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom33; (1923)25BOMLR826; 76Ind.Cas.1014
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued as agriculturists for redemption of two mortgages after taking accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The first two issues were : (1) are the plaintiffs agriculturists? and (2) is any of the plaintiffs an agriculturist? On August 26, 1919, the Subordinate Judge gave findings on these two issues with the reasons. He held that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists at that time, but plaintiff No. 1 and his deceased brother were agriculturists when the mortgages in suit were passed and when the mortgage debt was incurred. On the same day he appointed two Karkuns as Commissioners to take accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and added that findings on the remaining issues would be recorded after the return of the commission. His findings on those issues are given in a judgment of April 8, 1920, when he passed orders for redemption in favour of the plaintiffs, fixing the amount payable, etc. The plaintiffs made an...
Tag this Judgment!Shivrao Ramrao Vs. Laxmibai Kom Subrao Santappa Nagarkatte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom523; 76Ind.Cas.638
1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 201-8-0 due to her on three simple mortgage-bonds making as parties one Ramrao and his three sons and a third party who was not connected with the family and who was in possession of a part of the land. It was found that the third bond dated 11th August 1917 passed by the first defendant was not properly attested and, therefore, could not be admitted as a mortgage. The learned Judge, however, in the Trial Court held that the personal debt of the father was binding on the sons (defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5) and so he made defendant No. 2 personally liable. In appeal the District Judge considered that the sons as a pious duty were bound to pay the debt of their father. Both the Courts have forgotten that the pious obligation of sons to pay their fathers debt only arises at the death of their father. There is no pious duty or obligation during the lifetime of the father to pay whatever debt the father may incur. Defendants Nos. 2 4, and 5 must be relieve...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Navalkar Vs. Mrs. Sarojani Naidu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom421; (1923)25BOMLR463; 73Ind.Cas.133
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This application purports to be made under Sections 115 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the following circumstances:The petitioner and opponent No. 1 were candidates in the Bhuleshwar (C) ward Municipal General Election held on January 29, 1923, with fifteen others for sixteen seats. The petitioner as a result of the poll was not elected, and then filed an Election Petition under Section 33 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (III of 1888).2. Under Section 33 (1) if the qualification of any person declared to be elected for being a councillor is disputed, or if the validity of any election is questioned whether by reason of the improper rejection by the Commissioner of a nomination or of the improper reception or refusal of a vote, or for any other cause, any person enrolled in the Municipal election roll may, at any time, within fifteen days after the result of the election has been declared, apply to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. Sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Kanemar Venkapaiya Vs. Nazerally Tyabally Singaporevalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom36; (1923)25BOMLR484
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. By Act XIV of 1920, Section 10 A was directed to be inserted after Section 10 of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act No. II of 1918. On December 31, 1921, the defendant in Suit No. 2676 of 1921 was evicted by the plaintiff under a decree passed on September 9, 1921, on the ground that the plaintiff, his landlord, required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The defendant alleging that the plaintiff had not occupied the premises within the period of six months horn December 31, 1921, moved the Court under Section 10 A of the Rent Act for an order that the plaintiff should be made to re-instate him in the occupation of the premises described in the plaint, on the original terms and conditions of his lease and to pay him compensation for the loss suffered during the period he was kept out of possession of the said premises.2. The defendant filed his notice of motion in the office of the Prothonotary on August 25, 1922, givin...
Tag this Judgment!Natha Gulab and Co. Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR599
Mulla, J.1. After setting out facts as above his Lordship proceeded : It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that there was either a completed gift, or, if there was no completed gift, there was at least a trust created for the defendant in respect of the said sum of Rs. 7,700.2. As regards a retiring gratuity there does not seem to be any doubt that it is in the nature of the gift. There is no obligation whatever upon the Board to grant any such gratuity. The gratuity being in the nature of a gift, it must be completed either by a registered document or by actual payment as required by Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 The delivery of the cheque by the Railway Company to the Mercantile Bank though coupled with the request to send the amount to their London Office was not equivalent to delivery to the defendant. The London Office was not the defendant's agent; but the agent of the Railway Company. Until payment to the defendant the Railway Company could have counterma...
Tag this Judgment!Natha Gulab and Co. Vs. W.C. Shaller and G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom88; 87Ind.Cas.312
Mulla, J.1. After stating the facts of the case His Lordship proceeded: ]It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff, that there was either a completed gift, or if there was no completed gift there was at least a trust created for, the defendant in respect of the said sum of Rs. 7,700.2. As regards a retiring gratuity there does not seem to be any doubt that it is in the nature of the gift. There is no obligation whatever upon the Board to grant any such gratuity. The gratuity being in the nature of a gift, it must be completed either by a registered document or by-actual payment as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The delivery of the cheque by the Railway Company to the Mercantile Batik though coupled with the request to send the amount to their London Office was not' equivalent to delivery to the defendant. The London Office was not the defendant's agent, but the agent of the Railway Company. Until payment to the defendant the Railway Company could have cou...
Tag this Judgment!Kurshit Kathum by Agent, Mahomed Ismail Sheriff Sahib Vs. Hyder Khan S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.93
Krishnan, J.1. I think the order of the lower Court cannot be supported. It has been laid down in Gill v. Varada Raghavayya 55 Ind. Cas. 517 : 43 M. 396 : 38 M.L.J. 92 : 11 L.W. 174 (1920) M.W.N. 124 : 17 M.L.T. 146 that a suit for partition of immoveable property when the plaintiff is not a member of a joint family so as to make Section 7, Clause (4), of the Court-tees Act apply, but alleges that he is in joint possession, the Article applicable is Article 17, Clause (6). The present case is one of a Muhammadan co-sharer who sues her other co-sharers for partition and possession of her share of her deceased father's properties, and she alleges that she is in possession of some of the items as indicative of her joint possession in law with the other co-sharers of the deceased's estate. There is no case here of her being excluded from any part of that estate by her co-sharers or to put in another way her being ousted from possession of any part of it. In such a case as this the suit is ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadas Narayandas Vs. Jekisondas Mancharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom458; (1923)25BOMLR520; 73Ind.Cas.1032
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants to recover Rs. 1396-9-0 being differences on the suit contracts for purchase and sale of cotton seeds. The defence was that the contracts were of a wagering nature, and the onus would lie upon the defendants to prove that fact. The trial Court held that the contracts were wagering contracts and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court came to a different conclusion and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The question whether the contracts were of a wagering nature was really a pure question of fact, that is to say, the party disputing that he was liable under the contracts would have to show that at the time the contracts were entered into, the parties did not intend to carry out the contracts, but agreed to abide by the prices ruling at the due dates, when differences would be paid or received. It is unfortunate that on such a simple question, it was considered necessary in the Courts below, b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »