Mumbai Court May 1924 Judgments
Andrew Rozario Vs. Mahomed Ibrahim Sarang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom460; (1924)26BOMLR695; 83Ind.Cas.34
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to set aside a decree obtained by the defendant against him in Suit No. 3367 of 1923 for Rs. 1900 with interest and costs, on October 22, 1923. The defendant was adjudicated an insolvent on his own petition on November 30, 1922. Before the Official Assignee he filed a statement showing liabilities Rs. 13,000 and outstanding debts Rs. 2000 doubtful He described himself as a ship repairer and supplier of coolies and said he had no hooks of account or loose papers as he did not keep any. He did not file his schedule and nothing further was done in the matter of the petition.2. Clearly as the insolvent's interest in the debt, if any, due by the present plaintiff had become vested in the Official Assignee, he had no legal right to bring the suit. If this had been discovered before the decree was passed, the Official Assignee would have been given an opportunity of deciding whether he should be brought on the record as plaintiff, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Radha Kishan Vs. Jag Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR732
Dunedin, J.1. The present action was brought to enforce a mortgage on the family estate which had been executed by a pardanashin lady, now deceased, who had had a widow's right in the said estate The mortgage bore to be for Its. 775 with compound interest at 24 per cent. and half-yearly rests. The Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage was enforceable only as to Rs. 329. Necessity as to the remainder not having been proved, he decreed for Rs. 329 as principal and for interest at only 24 per cent simple. This brought out the interest at Rs. 1178.12.9. The High Court agreed as to the principal, but held that compound interest should be charged, which brought out the total sum at Rs. 18548.11.4.2. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge is concisely ex-pressed in his finding on the 5th issue. He says:--Issue No, 5.--The amount covered by both the handnotes (Exts. 1 and 2 (a)) curried interest at 2 per cent, per month. The bond in suit was executed only a month or so after the executio...
Tag this Judgment!Sarkar Barnard and Co. Vs. Alak Manjary Kuari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR737
Shaw, J.1. This appeal has been presented ex parte. Everything in its favour that could be said has been said. Their Lordships are of opinion that it is a hopeless appeal and will humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss it accordingly.2. The usual order will be made with regard to such costs as the respondents may be entitled to....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abubaker Haji Abdulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom513; (1924)26BOMLR627; 83Ind.Cas.809
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. One Abubaker Haji Abdulla was adjudicated insolvent on or about October 20, 1923. At that time he was a monthly tenant of certain premises belonging to one Bai Rehmabai at a monthly rent of Rs. 50. At the date of adjudication the insolvent was in arrears of rent, and since the adjudication he has remained in possession of the premises without paying rent. The present applicant, the owner of the premises, called upon the Official Assignee to declare whether he claimed any interest in the tenancy of the portion of her premises let to the insolvent which in consequence of the insolvency had vested in the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee sent a notice disclaiming his interest in the tenancy. The applicant now asks for an order directing the insolvent to put her in possession of the portion of the premises in his occupation, contending that the order can be made under Section 66 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. In the ordinary course a monthly tenancy...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mhabli Rama Sail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom480; (1924)26BOMLR706; 87Ind.Cas.520
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused by name Mhabli Rama Sail from Majali, a British village, on the boundary between British and Portuguese territory in the Kanara District was charged with having committed the murders of three persons on or about September 27, 1917, at Lolliem in Goa territory. The Portuguese authorities commenced the preliminary investigation at once but it does not appear that any names were mentioned in connection with the crime. At any rate it was not suggested that the name of the accused was mentioned in any official record, or that any request was made to the British authorities, as the accused belonged to a British village, to make a search for him. At the present trial Exhibit 13 said the news of the murder spread in a few days and it was rumoured that accused might have committed it He was going from Mahali side to Lolliem on the day of the murder when the witness met him about 11 a. m. and asked him where he (accused) was going. He said he was going to purch...
Tag this Judgment!The Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. Vs. Albert Bonnan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR683
Phillimore, J.1. Before the year 1901, the Company known as W.D. and H.O. Wills, Limited, had begun to manufacture a particular cigarette which got to be known as Gold Flake or Wills' Gold Flake, and which soon acquired a considerable reputation.2. In the year 1901, W.D. and H O. Wills, Limited, and various other companies became amalgamated into one Company called the Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland), Limited, and the whole business of W.D. and H.O. Wills, Limited, with its good will and trade marks was assigned to the Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland), Limited. In September, 1902, this last-named Company made an agreement with a Company called the American Tobacco Company, by which it was agreed that the American Tobacco Company should confine its trade to the United States and certain islands, and that the Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland), Limited, should confine its trade to Great Britain and Ireland, and that thes...
Tag this Judgment!Maharu Lotu Vs. Khandu Hari Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR742
Dunedin, J.1. In this case the first respondent, the owner of certain separate parcels of land, entered into an agreement to sell those lands on October 2, 1913, to the appellant. He did not at the time follow that up by an actual sale, and on October 27, 1913, he sold the same lands to the second respondent by two sale-deeds. Following upon that he also made a conveyance on November 6, 1913, in virtue of the first agreement. In the attestation which has to be appended at registration the vendor in respect of the sale of October 27, 1913, made a statement that he had signed the document in question not as sales, but as mortgage deeds Priority of time is in favour of the two sales which happened upon October 27, and they, therefore, must be got rid of, and the way in which the defendant, whose transferee had got into possession, endeavoured to get rid of them was to asseverate that when he appended his signature to the two sale deeds on October 27, he was so drunk that he did not know w...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. Natha Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR750
Dunedin, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue for redemption of five mortgages. Two of those mortgages, the earlier two in date, were usufructuary mortgages; the other mortgages were not usufructuary, but with regard to the next two--for as to the fifth one, there is no question at all--there is a recital that interest is to be paid upon the sum borrowed2. Now, the whole point of the case is whether that interest in this third and fourth mortgage does or does not form a charge upon the property. The learned trial Judge held that it did form a charge on the property, and therefore granted redemption only upon term of paying the principal sums and the interest. That decree was reversed upon appeal, and the High Court allowed redemption upon payment of the principal loan only. Their Lordships find that, in the judgment of the learned Judges in the High Court, they state with perfect correctness what their Lordships apprehend is undoubted law. They say: 'The general rule is that the mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Jagapat Singh Dugar Vs. Puran Chand Nahatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR772
Shaw, J.1. There are two interesting questions raised on this appeal. They will be taken in their logical order.2. The first has reference to the point of the authority of counsel to conclude this transaction of compromise of a pending suit. It must be admitted that the compromise was of a somewhat singular character. One circumstance reflects the greatest credit upon the senior counsel for the defendant in the case, because by that compromise he was elected by both parties as the person whose verdict would be taken either as final judgment, or, at least, for consideration, on the subject of the amount to be paid to the plaintiff in the action.3. Their Lordships are aware that the authority of counsel to compromise action upon a general footing is not in question, under what is known as 'the mandate of wig and gown.' But their Lordships are of opinion that the compromise disclosed in these proceedings was of a highly exceptional, if not unique, character. And they incline to the view t...
Tag this Judgment!Asharfi Singh Vs. Bidya Prashad Narayan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR776
Shaw, J.1. Everything that could be said in favour of this appeal has been admirably said by the learned counsel for the appellant. Their Lordships adopt the opinion of the Court below, which is appealed from, but desire only to say that they cannot see their way to acquiesce in the characterisation of the conveyance of the malik as occurring in a preamble in the deed. When the deed is looked at it is seen that the actual gift to the donee of the malik is that which, although characterised as in the preamble, is in truth in the substantive disposition.2. With that correction, however, full assent must be given to the proposition that the deed as a whole must be looked to. In the primary clause, called erroneously a preamble, and now referred to as the actual portion constituting the gift, these words follow the gift--'and all rights appertaining thereto with the following conditions' It appears to their Lordships that that fundamentally affects the construction of the deed as a whole, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »