Mumbai Court December 1924 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.
Surajmull Nagoremull Vs. Triton Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR770
Sumner, J.1. The appellants, the plaintiffs below, brought their suit for breach of an alleged contract to ' issue policies of insurance covering war risks on goods ' shipped or to be shipped by them ' at the rate prevailing at the time of the plaintiff firm's declaration of the steamer, by which goods, as aforesaid, were to be shipped ' (Plaint para. 3). As developed in further paragraphs, this was founded on (a) a written quotation by the defendants of their lowest rate on jute per Constantions XII at 1/2 per cent, and war risk at 5 per cent., less 10 per cent.; (b) an acceptance of this rate by the plaintiffs; and (o) an arrangement that the plaintiffs should supply the defendant company with a statement of the approximate amount to be covered, Ultimately there was a declaration for an aggregate amount of 10,870, for which sum the defendants refused to issue a policy, whereon the plaintiffs insured elsewhere at higher premiums and claimed the excess as their damages in the action. T...
Tulsi Ram Vs. Ram Saran Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR777
Sumner, J.1. The appellant sued upon a promissory note made by the respondent and he lost in the High Court the decree, which he had recovered at the trial. Curiously enough the main question is, whether he discharged the onus of proving that the note had been load without his default, so as to entitle him to give secondary evidence of its contents.2. According to the practice, either the original note or a copy of it had to be attached to the plaint. It was stated, both in the plaint and in the list of documents accompanying it, that the note exhibited was the original. This was on February, 14, 1917. Next day the plaintiff's pleader received notice from the Court officials, that he must amend his list and pay a further process fee. He went to the office to make these defects good and, apparently, had access at least to the list of documents, if not to the other papers. Thereafter the officials, probably on the same day, served the defendant with the plaint and so gave him the opportu...
Kokamal Madhoram Vs. Gulabsing Gurudatsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom248; (1925)27BOMLR277; 87Ind.Cas.481
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, alleging that the defendants requested him to order out aniline dyes on certain terms as to commission,2. On the account which subsisted between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to that transaction he claimed Rs. 1061-2-6 with interest from Kartak Sud 3, 1977, to Aso Vad 30, 1978, amounting to Rs. 145-1-6.3. The defendants applied to the High Court for a transfer on the strength of an affidavit in which they alleged-(1) that the defendants did not request the plaintiff to order out goods to them;(2) that defendants indented for goods from an Italian firm In. Iridescente;(3) that the said firm supplied the goods to the defendants through the plaintiff as agent of the firm;(4) that plaintiff had no right to sue in his own name since he was the agent of a disclosed principal;(5) that the defendants had a claim against the said firm for shortage and late delivery amounting to Rs, 4000...
Dhanrajgirji Narsingirji Vs. W.G. Ward
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom400; (1925)27BOMLR877
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a building in Bombay known as Watson's Annexe which is let out in flats,2. The defendant is a tenant of one of those flats on a monthly rental of Rs. 97. The plaintiff gave notice to quit on February 4, 1924, terminating the tenancy as from April 1, 1924. The defendant claims the privilege of Section 9 of the Rent Act, and also contends that the rent that he is paying is in excess of the standard rent.3. The main issue in the suit is what is the standard rent of the premises and in order to ascertain that, it is necessary to state briefly the terms on which the premises have been held.4. The whole building known as Watson's Annexe is situated on a property which was leased by the Port Trust to the plaintiff for a term of fifty years. The plaintiff leased the whole building to one Dr. Billimoria on March 24, 1915, at a rental of Rs. 2,850, besides Rs. 649 ground-rent and Rs. 980 taxes, making a total of Rs. 4,479. Dr. Billimoria sub-let the prem...
Dhanrajgirji Narsingirji Vs. W.R. Ward
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.886
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a building in Bombay known as Watson'S Annexe which is let out in flats.2. The defendant is a tenant of one of those flats on a monthly rental of Rs. 97. The plaintiff gave notice to quit on February 4, 1924, terminating the tenancy as from April 1, 1924. The defendant claims the privilege of Section 9 of the Rent Act, and also. contends that the rent that he is paying is in excess of the standard rent.2. The main issue in the suit is what is the standard rent of the premises and in order to ascertain that, it is necessary to state briefly the terms on which the premises have been held.3. The whole building known as Watson's Annexe is situated on a property which was leased by the Port Trust to the plaintiff for a term of fifty years. The plaintiff leased the whole building to one Dr. Billimoria on March 24, 1915, at a rental of Rs. 2,850, besides Rs. 649 ground rent and Rs. 980 taxes, making a total of Rs. 4,479. Dr. Billimoria sub-let the pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›