Mumbai Court July 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.
Harichand and Co. Vs. Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR921
Fawcett, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case and the correspondence between the parties, observed:--] At the trial it was not disputed that the goods tendered to the defendants were contract goods. But it was contended that owing to the bales being described by the figure 10 instead of the figure 9/5 mentioned in the contract, the defendants were not bound to accept the goods. This contention was overruled by the learned Judge in the Court below, and it is now admitted that there was a breach of the contract by the defendants. The Judge held that the date of this breach was April 5, 1921, and though in the judgment he refers to the defendants' final repudiation of May 17, it is clear that this does not affect the previous finding that there was a breach on April 5. We agree there was a clear breach on April 5, 1921, and that this was not affected by the subsequent negotiations which broke down on May 17.2. The only other point in dispute was whether the plaintiff...
Rose Fernandez Vs. Joseph Gonsalves
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom97; (1924)26BOMLR1035; 85Ind.Cas.587
Taraporewala, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who has now attained majority, for recovering damages for breach of 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 and 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 which, if decided in defendant's favour, goes to the very root of the case. The point is that the pontract in suit was either made by the defendant with the plaintif...
F.A.C. Rebello Vs. Co-operative Navigation and Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom105; (1924)26BOMLR907; 84Ind.Cas.363
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, which has been tiled in consequence of the unfortunate differences that have arisen among the members of the Indian Co-operative Navigation & Trading Co. Ltd. It appears that up to February 1923 the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 9 were directors of this company. By a special resolution of May 20, 1923, the company resolved to put in defendants Nos. 3 to 8 as new directors and to remove the plaintiffs from their office as directors. Before that resolution was confirmed the present suit was filed on May 28, 1923, in which the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the said resolution was illegal and invalid and that defendants Nos. 3 to 8 were not properly appointed. Apparently there was no dispute about defendants Nos. 2 and 9 continuing as directors. This resolution was subsequently confirmed and the defendants filed their written statement, in which they pleaded that the resolution was valid, and made a counter-claim...
Dhanrajgirji Narsinggirji Vs. Tata Sons Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom473; (1924)26BOMLR858
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of the deposit money, and for damages, in respect of a contract entered into between them and the deceased Raja Bahadur Narsinggirji with reference to certain immoveable property in Bombay which has been described as 'Watson's Annexe.' The contract was entered into on January 12, 1920. There was no formal contract between the parties, but it is evidenced by the two letters written on January 12, 1920, to the parties by their common broker (Exhibits A 2 and 1). The price of this property was fixed at Rs. 18,00,000 (eighteen lacs). The plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,00,000 as earnest money on January 13.2. The plaintiffs' case is that Raja Bahadur Narsinggirji broke the contract on November 20, 1920, the final date by which performance of the contract was insisted upon on their behalf. It appears that the plaintiffs entered into a contract for the sale of this very property with another person for twe...
Lachmi NaraIn Marwari Vs. Balmakund Marwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1129
Phillimore, J.1. This is a suit for partition brought in 1913 by the youngest of a family of brothers against two of his brothers and the children of a third brother.2. The eldest brother of all was omitted from the suit because it was suggested that he was already separate in estate. The original defendants, however, disputed this; and he was at their instance made a defendant party.3. At the hearing the Subordinate Judge took the view that he was separate and dismissed him from the suit.4. Appeal was thereupon taken to the High Court at Patna, and ultimately the following consent decree was made. [ His Lordship read the consent decree above set forth, and continued:]5. The suit was thereupon remitted to the Subordinate Judge in order that the necessary steps for effecting the partition of the undivided property into fourths and that the valuation of the eldest brother's share might be taken.6. After decree it is open to any party to a suit, to whose interest it is that further procee...
Dhanrajgirji Narsinggirji Vs. Tata Sons Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.225
Lalubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of the deposit money, and for damages in respect of a contract entered into between them and the deceased Raja Bahadur Narsinggirji with reference to certain immoveable property in Bombay which has been described as 'Watson's Annexe.' The contract was entered into on January 12, 1920, There was no formal contract between the parties, but it is evidenced by the two letters written on January 12, 1920, to the parties by their common broker (Exs. A2and'l). The price of this property was fixed at Rs. 18,00,000 (eighteen lacs). The plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,00,000 as earnest money on January i3.2. The plaintiffs' case is that Raja Bahadur Narsinggirji broke the contract on November 20, 1920, the final date by which performance of the contract was insisted upon on their behalf. It appears that the plaintiffs entered into a contract for the sale of this very property with another person for twenty-t...
Secretary of State for India Vs. Shantaram Narayan Dabholkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom12; (1924)26BOMLR847; 84Ind.Cas.397
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of certain references under the Land Acquisition Act. There were three references before the learned trial Judge. Apparently the Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation on the footing of the surface value of the land in question, and. it was agreed before the lower Court by the parties that the Court should be asked to give a decision on one point only, namely, whether or not the claimant had a right to the stone in the Inam land. It is not clear on this record as to how this question would be decisive of the references entirely. But it has been stated to us in the course of the argument that this particular right does not require to be valued, as the parties are agreed that one party or the other in whose favour the Court will give its decision on the point will be entitled to remove the stones, and that nothing further would remain to be decided. That was the only question which the Court was called upon to decide. The decision o...
Lakshman Sadashiv Palekar Vs. Govind Ganesh Karambelkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom527; (1924)26BOMLR843
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. In 1888 one Vishnu mortgaged his share in the lands in suit to the plaintiff's father and his uncle The mortgagee obtained a decree in 1901 against Vishnu and his brother Sadashiv. Apparently Vishnu purported to have mortgaged Sadashiv's share in the properties. The plaintiff's father had bought over the whole mortgage interest. The plaintiff's father bought the property at the sale in October 1905. In 1908 he attempted to get possession under the sale but, an objection was raised by the present defendant No.1, who re presented the interest of Sadashiv. In November 1909 the objection of defendant No. 1 was allowed, and the Court held that the plaintiff's father was not entitled to exclusive possession, but that he could have joint possession with defendant No. 1. In 1911 the plaintiff filed a suit to enforce his right under the sale, but apparently that was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. Then a suit was filed in the Rajapur Court on September...
A. Cecil Cole Vs. Nanalal Moraji Dave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom18; (1924)26BOMLR880
Marten, J.1. [His Lordship after getting out facts of the case proceeded.--] The first point that really arises is what is the nature of the agreement which the parties entered into. Was it a hire-purchase agreement in the sense in which it is so understood in England, viz., no absolute sale, but only a hiring of the chattel by a person who has the option of returning it at any time before the various instalments are paid. Or on the other hand, despite the language which the parties have used, was it really a sale having regard to what the parties in fact agreed to do '. Before I turn to the actual document in this case, I wish to keep these two points of principle clearly before me, so that when I come to the document, I can show what in particular are the relevant passages to be borne in mind.2. Now there are two lines of authority illustrating what I have just said. The first line of cases illustrates a hire-purchase agreement proper, viz., where the hirer of a chattel has only an o...
Waman Martand Bhalerao Vs. the Commissioner, Central Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom524; (1924)26BOMLR942; 84Ind.Cas.421
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. G.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. It relates to a sale-deed, dated February 9, 1923, executed by the vendors for a net consideration of Rs. 10,000.2. The property sold was along with another property subject to a mortgage of Rs. 13,858-6-0 inclusive of interest at the date of the sale. The property was also subject to attachment, in respect whereof Rs. 1,500 were payable. The sale-deed makes it clear that the net consideration for the sale is Rs. 10,000. The liability for the mortgage charges and for the amount payable in respect of the attachment is accepted by the vendors under the terms of the document. The stamp duty actually paid is on Rs. 10,000. The Collector demanded the duty on that amount as well as the amount of the encumbrances. At the instance of the purchaser this reference has been made; and the question submitted for our opinion is whether in this case, in which the vendee is absolved from responsibility for removal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›