Mumbai Court July 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.
Chotalal Lallubhai and ors. Vs. Champsey Umersa and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.233
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit for the price, of twenty five bales of Japanese yarn agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and, in the alternative, for damages for failure on the part of the defendants to pay for and take delivery thereof.2. By a contract dated 2nd February 1918 (Exhibit A) the plaintiffs agreed to buy from Messrs. Gosho Kabooshiki Kaisha twenty-five bales of Japanese yarn of February-March 1918 shipment, but the shipment was not guaranteed.3. By a contract in the Gujrati language, dated 21st August 1918, the plantiffs agreed to sell the said twenty-five bales to the defendants. The following is an official translation of the material portions of the said contract:This day we have purchased from you the goods of the below-written details in accordance with the Bazaar rules of which you please take note. To cancel or not to cancel the sold goods for any of the reasons solely depends upon you. Cotton yarn No. 60-2 of Japan shipment for February-March 1918 bou...
Kishen Prasad and Co. Ltd. Vs. Fullumal Hiralal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom166; (1923)25BOMLR888
Fawcett, J.1. In this motion the Court's leave is asked to amend the plaint by adding certain words in the first prayer for relief which will have the effect of making payable to the plaintiffs the expenses, etc., payable to the muccadams for storing, etc., the 407 and 16 bales of cotton which the plaintiffs had received from the defendants. In its decree of April 8, 1922, the Court appointed the manager of the plaintiffs to be Receiver of these bales ; and the question of plaintiffs' right to recover these expenses has arisen in the course of the Receiver passing his accounts before the Commissioner. The Chamber Judge has held that they are not covered by the decree, and hence this motion. It is also asked that the decree should be amended similarly on such terms as the Court may deem fit to impose on the plaintiffs.2. The first question that arises is whether the amendment of the plaint, which is asked for, falls under Section 153 and Order VI, Rule 17, of the Civil Procedure Code, S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›