Mumbai Court July 1924 Judgments
Meghji Moorji Vs. Tyeballi Kamruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom64; (1924)26BOMLR1019
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. [His lordship, after setting out the facts of the case at considerable length, proceeded as follows:] In the appeal before us on these facts, it has been contended that there was no waiver on the part of the plaintiff to insist upon the stipulation as to the marketable title being deduced by the defendant, that there was no estoppel, and that in fact as the title was not marketable, no decree for specific performance could be, and should be, passed under the circumstances of the case. On the other hand, it is urged that the plaintiff really authorised Messrs. Mulla and Mulla to complete the sale on April 20, 1920, and as a result of that authority which Messrs. Mulla and Mulla had, the assignment, Exh. 1, was prepared, and as part-payment of purchase money was paid by the plaintiff, he could not now call upon the defendant to make out a marketable title. In substance the argument is that he effectively waived his right to the marketable title being made out b...
Tag this Judgment!Kesho Prasad Singh Vs. Sheo Pargash Ojha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR130
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad of July 9, 1921, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur of September 3, 1918.2. The suit was brought by the respondents against the appellant for the possession of certain lands described in the plaint. These lands consisted of a 2 anna 8 pie share in a permanently settled mouzah called Pachrokhia: and a grove No. 526 in Mouza Balihar.3. A decree has been passed substantially as prayed, The defendant appeals.4. The facts raising such questions in the suit as remain for their lordships' consideration may be compendiously stated.5. The respondents have been found to be, as they alleged they were, the reversionary heirs of one Manohar Ojha who died without issue in 1856. At his death he was entitled as part of has estate to both properties in suit. In Pachrokhia, the appellant, who is the present Maharajah of Dumraon, was also interested as the owner of an eight annas share.6...
Tag this Judgment!Kesarlal Girdharlal Desai Vs. Jagubhai Hiralal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR226
Marten, J.1. We have already disposed, on July 29, of Appeal No. 337 of 1922 apart; from the question of costs, and have also dealt with some of the points raised in Appeal No. 67 of 192:l We have since heard full arguments on the remaining points in Appeal No. 67 of 1023 and also Civil Application No. 533 of 1924.2. Under the rulings of the Court already given, a one-fifth share in the income, the subject-matter of the accounts directed by the preliminary decree (if 1894 as subsequently varied by the orders of the appellate Court, devolves on the original defendant No 3, Himatlal, or his assigns or personal representatives). If one looks at the pedigree, it will bo observed that Himatlal was one of five brothers, throe of whom, viz., Girdharlal, Bhagubhai and Jaswantrai predeceased him, and one, namely, Hiralal, the original plaintiff No. 1, survived him. It will also be seen that Himatlal died in 1902 leaving a widow Chaturba who died in September 1917. It is alleged that Himatlal le...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Tulshidas Vs. Biharilal Jagamal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom357; (1925)27BOMLR525; 87Ind.Cas.1026
Taraporewala, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 by way of damages on the ground that an attachment before judgment and injunction were applied for by the defendants in this suit in suit No. 2145 of 1921 filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs on insufficient ground, that such application was made by the defendants wrongfully and maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, and that by reason of such wrongful application the plaintiffs suffered damage in their credit and reputation and have been put to trouble and inconvenience and expenses.2. Various issues were raised by Mr. Munshi for the defendants. The first issue is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action. Mr. Munshi haw asked the Court to try this issue as a preliminary issue in order to save the costs and expenses of inquiring into the merits if the first issue is decided in the defendants' favour. Mr. Munshi has contended that the plaint does not disclose ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Tulsidas Vs. Beharimal Jagarmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom629
Taraporewala, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 by way of damages on the ground that an attachment before judgment and injunction were applied for by the defendants in this suit in Suit No. 2145 of 1921 filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs on insufficient ground, that such application was made by the defendants wrongfully and maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, and that by reason of such wrongful application the plaintiffs suffered damage in their credit and reputation and have been put to trouble and inconvenience and expenses.2. Various issues were raised by Mr. Munshi for the defendants. The first issue is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action. Mr. Munshi has asked the Court to try this issue as a preliminary issue in .order to save the costs and expenses of inquiring into the merits if the first issue is decided in the defendants' favour. Mr. Munshi has contended that the plaint does not disclose...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ranchhod Sursang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom502; (1924)26BOMLR954
Kincaid, J.1. [His lordship first dealt with the facts of the case. The case of appellant No. 1 was then considered, and his appeal was dismissed. The cases of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were next taken up, and after setting out the facts as regards them the judgment proceeded:] On the facts, therefore, I have not the slightest doubt that the appellants Nos.2 and 3 conspired with appellant No. 1 to shoot Nathuram on the morning of October 24.2. I now turn to the legal points in the case, which are of considerable importance. The first point raised by the learned advocate was that his clients, appellants Nos. 2 and 3, had been charged under Sub-section 148, 146 and 307, but had been convicted under Section 114 read with Section 307. The learned counsel next argued that to charge a person with a substantive offence and to convict him on a charge of abetting that offence was illegal and afforded a good ground for re-trial.3. In support of his contention the learned advocate quoted the cases ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhod Sursang and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.600
Kincaid, J.1. After dealing with the facts of the case, his Lordship agreed with the Sessions Judge as to the findings of fact and held that the appellants Nos. 2 and, 3 conspired with appellant No. 1 to shoot the complainant, He then proceeded :]I now turn to the legal points in the case, which are of considerable importance. The first point raised by the learned Advocate was that his clients, appellant Nos. 2 and 3, had been charged under Sections 148, 149 and' 307. It had been convicted under Section 114 read with Section 307. The learned Counsel next argued that to charge a person with a substantive offence and to convict him on a charge of abetting that offence was illegal and afforded a good ground for retrial.2. In support of his contention the learned Advocate quoted the cases of Reg. v. Chand Nur 11 B.H.C.R. 240 and Emperor v. Raghya Nagya 81 Ind. Cas. 959 : A.I.R (1924). (B.) 432 : 26 Bom. L.R. 323 : 25 Cr.L.J. 1135. I cannot find any such dictum in the two, cases. As regards...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Bhikaji Khanolkar Vs. Vasudeo Vinayak Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom518; (1924)26BOMLR950
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 92, Sub-section (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, that is, whether the suit as framed is within the scope of Section 92. For this purpose it is necessary to refer to the allegations in the plaint briefly and to the prayers. The plaint is rather a long document, but the effect of it is that according to the plaintiffs they and defendants 11 and 12 are really the Hakdars or some of the Hakdars in the income of the temple in question, and that defendants Nos. 1-10 have been managing this wrongfully and appropriating the proceeds of the temple. After referring to their Hak to appropriate the proceeds of the temple, they state the cause of action in this manner in paragraph 8:--2. On behalf of the Dewasthan and for the benefit of the said Institution, the plaintiffs have brought this suit as those persons are entitled to take the income who are empowered to receive...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Fernandes Vs. Joseph Gonsalves
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR48Bom673
Taraporewala, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who has now attained majority, for recovering damages for breach of a contract of marriage made by the defendant with her and her father. There is no dispute as to the facts in the case and although the defendant's counsel in his cross-examination tried to elicit facts with a view to show that the contract of marriage was by mutual consent cancelled or abandoned, the defendant has not ventured to go into the witness-box or lead any evidence to substantiate the said allegation. I must, therefore, take it that the contract of marriage, which is admitted by the defendant, was subsisting at the date the defendant admittedly married another lady in the year 1921 and that he has committed a breach of the contract. The defendant's counsel, however, has taken up a point whish, if decided, in defendant's favour, goes to the very root of the case. The point is that the contract in suit was either made by the defendant with the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Parshuram Dattaram Shamdasani Vs. the Tata Industrial Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom49; (1924)26BOMLR987; 90Ind.Cas.580
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. [His lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded:] I shall first take up the points relating to the notice convening the extraordinary general meeting on July 19. In order to appreciate them, it is material to state here that the capital of the Tata Bank was seven and a half crores of rupees, consisting of ten lakhs shares of 11Sectin. 75 each. In respect of each share at the material time Rs. 22-8-0 were oiled in with the result that at that date its paid up capital was two and a quarter crores. The balance sheet of this Bank published before these negotiations commenced relates to the year ending with March 31, 1923. It appears from the evidence that about the end of June 1923, the condition of the Bank was not satisfactory. The deposits in the Bank at the end of March 1923 amounted to about Rs. 5,95,00,000, while at the end of June 1923 they had gone down to 3,37,00,000 of rupees. It is also in evidence that the Manager of the Bank had foun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »