Mumbai Court June 1923 Judgments
Gokuldas Pitambar Vs. Odhavji Gigabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom100; (1923)25BOMLR893
Pratt, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff, the tenant, to set aside a decree obtained by the defendant, his landlord, on the ground of fraud. The decree was passed on December 15, 1922, requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before May 31 of this year. The defendant's requisition in that suit, which was Suit No. 3745 of 1922, was for his own occupation and the bona fides and the reasonableness for that requisition was the principal matter in issue. In the course of the hearing of that suit the defendant said in answer to cross-examination 'I am the rent farmer and hold the premises under a lease. The lease has net expired : it will last two years more. 'The plaintiff says that that was false evidence, that the defendant was not a lessee, and that if he had a lease it did not last two years more and that the only document under which the defendant was in possession was the document Exh. C according to which the defendant was not a lessee at all but a rent farming agent t...
Tag this Judgment!Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Vs. Ravi Venkatappayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1290
Carson, J.1. The appellants are the Zemindars of North Vallur Estate in Kiatna district, and the respondents are the occupancy tenants of certain villages in the said estate.2. In 1904 the Zemindar, father of the appellants, brought before the Court of the Head Assistant Collector of the Bezwada Division Kistna district, forty-nine summary suits under Section 9 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865, against the respondent raiyats to enforce the acceptance by them of pattas or leases of Faslis 1314 and 1315 (1904 and 1905) which had been tendered to them. The Zemindar demanded asara or varam rates for wet lands. The tenants on the other hand denied the claim of the Zemindar, pleading that certain rates had been fixed in Fasli 1202 (1882), which were alone recoverable and not the asara or varam rates (produce sharing system) demanded by the Zemindar. The suits were dismissed by the Head Assistant Collector, Bezwada Division, finding as a fact that the conversion of the asara rates into c...
Tag this Judgment!Phirozshaw Bomanjee Petit Vs. Bai Goolbai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom790
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court at Bombay, which had affirmed a decree of the same Court in its original jurisdiction. The questions decided had been raised by originating summons, taken out by certain of the present respondents, who were trustees of an inter vivos settlement, dated 1st August 1913, and made by a wealthy Parsee inhabitant of Bombay, one Bomanjed Dinshaw Petit, who died on 17th December 1915.2. By this settlement the settlor had conveyed a large amount of property to the trustees on trust, inter alia, and so far as is material for the purposes of the questions in this appeal, to receive the rents and profits and, after making certain other payments, to make over the balance of income to the settlor himself during his life. After his death the trustees were to realise, by sale, conversion or otherwise, of the trust premises, certain sums, and, within 13 months after the settlor's death, out of the balance of income from what remained, accruin...
Tag this Judgment!Morarji Premji Gokuldas Vs. Mulji Ranchhod Ved and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom232; (1923)25BOMLR1014
Fawcett, J.1. In this appeal the facts are not in dispute, and are clearly detailed in the judgment of the Court below.2. Briefly, the defendants are a firm doing business as share-brokers and employed one Gordhandas Purshottamdas in the course of their business as a sub-broker. There is a question as to the exact extent of his authority, but the word 'sub-broker' appropriately describes the main functions of Gordhandas. There was a transaction on August 10, 1922, between him and the plaintiff, and the result was that the plaintiff had to pay him Rs. 15000. Gordhandas owed the plaintiff Rs. 1000 and the plaintiff gave him a crossed bearer cheque of Rs. 14000 in favour of the defendants. Gordhandas paid this cheque into his own account with a bank, and on the same day drew two cheques in favour of the defendants for sums amounting in all to Rs. 10645-10-0, which they duly received. Subsequently Gordhandas absconded without having taken any steps to carry out the plaintiffs contract. The...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Digambar Paluskar Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom278; (1923)25BOMLR881
Crump, J.1. After setting out the rival contentions of the parties the judgment proceeded : For the purposes of this case there are two alternatives. Either the person who placed the ladder in the rack was in defendants' employ, or he was not. la it possible in the circumstances to say that one hypothesis is more likely than the other? I am satisfied on the evidence of the Carriage Inspector Cantervischer that these ladders are intended to be kept under the berths. That is consonant with common sense, No responsible person would place an article of that kind in a rack such as we have here. I am also satisfied that the Company's servants would ordinarily remove a ladder from the rack if they found it there. It is possible that they might place it there temporarily while sweeping or washing the carriage, and that it might escape notice. On the other hand the train stands at the passenger platform for an hour and a half before it starts and any passenger can enter a compartment. Luggage i...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaya Pandaram Vs. Muhammad Mustappa Maracayar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1275
Buckmaster, J.1. The real question in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by the operation of the statute of limitation.2. It was instituted by the appellant to recover, as against a purchaser under an execution sale and those who claimed under him, certain property which had by two deeds dated February 21, 1890, and the December 13, 1894, been devoted to charitable purposes. The 6rst of these two documents declared that the heirs of the settlor in the order of primogeniture should be trustees and conduct the said charities. The settlor died in 1895, leaving him surviving his widow and Arunachellam, his only son. Arunachellam is the father of the present appellant. He was trustee of the charity and having become involved in debt one of his creditors sued him and obtained a decree in execution of which the endowments of the charity were attached. The settlor's widow, on behalf of the appellant who was then an infant, filed an objection to the attachment, but it was dismissed on th...
Tag this Judgment!Rahimtulla Vs. Hasanali Alimahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom212; (1923)25BOMLR1192; 85Ind.Cas.1038
Fawcett, J.1. His Lordship after summarising the facts of the case continued : The main question is, therefore, whether the defendant has properly complied with clause 6 of the agreement Exh. F and adduced satisfactory proof that the tenure of land agreed to be sold is perpetual Fazandari subject only to the small annual rent of Rs. 10. The land in question is admittedly situated in the quarter known as Matharpakhadi, which forms part of what is known as the Mazagaon Estate ; and it is fortunate that the history of this estate, in regard to the disposal of lands included in it, is known from about the middle of the sixteenth century A. D. The Court is much indebted to the care and ability with which the respective attorneys and counsel have prepared and argued this case and also to the compilation of Mr. Vaidya regarding the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, in the introduction to which (viz., in Chapter III) he has given the history of this Mazagaon Estate. It may be mentioned that this h...
Tag this Judgment!Somshikharswami Shidlingswami Vs. Shivappa Mallappa Hosmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom39; (1923)25BOMLR863; 76Ind.Cas.557
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a mortgage from one Tipava in 1904, and in a suit on that mortgage, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. In execution of that decree he purchased the property in suit with the leave of the Court. When he tried to get possession, he was obstructed by the present defendants, to whom apparently Tipava had transferred the property while the litigation was pending. As a result the plaintiff filed Suit No. 344 of 1911 against the defendants to obtain possession. He obtained a decree on February 15, 1913. There was an appeal first to the District Court and then to the High Court, which ultimately confirmed the decree on December 10, 1915. He filed his application for execution of this decree on June 28, 1920.2. During the interval, however, the defendans filed Suit No. 42 of 1916 for a declaration that the plaintiff's decree had been obtained by fraud. That litigation lasted till July 31, 1920, when the suit was ul...
Tag this Judgment!Parshuram Dattaram Shamdasani Vs. the Tata Industrial Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1083
Pratt, J.1. The first and the second plaintiffs who are shareholders in the Tata Industrial Bank, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913, file this suit against the company by their directors for a declaration that the proceedings of a general meeting held on May 1, 1923, were improperly conducted and that certain appointments made at that meeting of directors and auditors are invalid. The plaint also prays for an injunction restraining the company from having its accounts audited by the auditors appointed at the meeting and also for a mandatory injunction to take de novo proceedings which I suppose means to compel the company to hold a fresh meeting.2. A rule was granted restraining the company pending the hearing of the suit from having its accounts audited by the appointed auditors, When the rule came on for hearing last Thursday plaintiff No. 1 wished to adjourn the rule to the hearing of the suit, and the defendant company on the other hand contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnabai Vs. Fazalbhoy Heptoola
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR189
Sumner, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by one Jamnabai, the widow and executrix of Tricum Nathoo, who died so long ago as 1892. He had been a partner in a muccadamage firm, Khimji Jiwa and Co., with a gentleman called Khimji Jiwa, who had retired from the firm and had died before the time at which Tricum Nathoo died. The widow Jaranabai commenced these proceedings against certain persons who continued to carry on the same business as had been carried on by her late husband in partnership, although they changed the name of the firm. She brought an action for accounts, the principal object of which, so far as the present appeals are concerned, was to obtain an account and a share of certain buildings and the rents produced by those buildings, which originally had been purchased by her late husband and his partner while they were still in partnership. The buildings consisted on the one hand of a house built on the estate of the Port Trust in Bombay, and on the other of sundry godowns...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »