Mumbai Court August 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.
Girjabai Shivdeorao Vinchurkar Vs. Narayanrao Ganpatrao Vinchurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom148; (1924)26BOMLR1165
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. [His lordship after setting out the facts of the case, and deciding questions of fact arising in the case, dealt with the points of Jaw as follows:] First, it has been urged that a certificate under the pensions Act is necessary in view of the provisions of Section 4, and that a suit cannot be entertained without such a certificate. It is contended that the suit so far as it relates to these four items, relates to a grant of money conferred by the British Government within the meaning of Section 4. The learned Judge overruled this objection on the ground that this was a suit for accounts generally of various items, and that a suit of this nature cannot be said to relate to pension or grant of money within the meaning of the section. There are no doubt conflicting considerations, one favourable to the contention and the other against it. In the present case, it is urged on behalf of the respondent that really in virtue of the two arrangements, one in 1869 and ...
Ramchandra Pandurang Jahagirdar Vs. Yellava Madar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom194; (1924)26BOMLR1203
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. In this appeal the question is whether the document, which purports to be a true copy of a certain order, addressed by the then Inamdar of the village to the village officers, is admissible in evidence In connection with that point it is urged that the original order required registration, This question arises in connection with the point as to whether defendant No. 1 is proved to be a permanent tenant of the land in question. The case for the plaintiff in the lower Court was that defendant No. 1 was an annual tenant. Both the Courts have found that she is a permanent tenant, and it is clear that if the copy to which I have referred is admissible in evidence, the permanent tenancy is proved.2. The point of registration was not urged in either of the lower Courts, and though it has been urged here, I feel Clear that the point has no merit in it. It is an order directed by the Inamdar to the village officers in which certain directions as to this land are given...
Balvant Vishnu Vs. Mishrilal Shivnarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom115; (1924)26BOMLR1194; 85Ind.Cas.177
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal aries out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for a breach of the contract entered into by the defendants' father, now deceased, with the plaintiff to purchase twenty Khandies of cotton. The contract was entered into on December 9, 1916, and was in these terms:--To Shivnarayan Hajarimal Marwadi, residence Bhusaval, be pleased to road the salutations of Balvant Vishnu Nargundkar, residence Bhusaval. The object of writing this letter is that a contract is made between you and me for cotton, approximately 20 Khandies of large Malkapur measure, that is of 392 seers, at Rs. 150 for every Khandy. This contract was made approximately five or six days ago. You can take delivery of the said cotton goods on January 1, 1917, or any time before, by coming here, that is, by coming to our field in village Charthane, I will take the price of the goods immediately after the weighment and delivery of the cotton and on the same day. I have taken t...
Narayan Ganesh Patankar Vs. Sagunabai Gangadhar Patankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom193; (1924)26BOMLR1200; 85Ind.Cas.181
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. In this case a decree was obtained by Sagunabai, the plaintiff, against one Ganesh for Rs. 1,221-11-1. While the appeal was pending in the District Court Ganesh died, and his son, the present appellant Narayan, was brought on the record as the legal representative of his deceased father. The District Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court and this Court also confirmed that decree in S A. No. 730 of 1917. The plaintiff now seeks to execute that decree by attaching the interest of Narayan and his deceased father in the ancestral house. It is admitted that during the lifetime of Ganesh, Ganesh and Narayan had one-third share in the house, and that is the interest which is attached in execution by the order of the learned District Judge in appeal.2. The defendant has appealed from the order of the District Judge, and in support of the appeal it is contended that the son's interest, i. e., one-sixth share in the house, is not liable to be attached, but it i...
Bai Dosibai Vs. Bai Dhanbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom85; (1924)26BOMLR1071; 85Ind.Cas.597
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shah dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance, and allowing the counter claim of the purchaser, defendant No. 1, for the return of her deposit of Rs. 5,000. The litigation turns on a restrictive covenant contained in the conveyance of September 24, 1918 (Ex. G), from the then owners of the Forjett Street estate, and on a similar covenant in the subsequent conveyance of June 14, 1920 (Ex. C), to the original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and Pestonji Edulji Mistry since deceased. The latter is now represented by his administratrix Bai Dosibai, who is the original plaintiff No. 3 and the present sole plaintiff. The original plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 have become insolvent, and are now represented by the Official Assignee, the present defendant No. 2.2. I will refer to the above covenant as the 71/2 feet covenant, and it runs as follows:-That no building or other structures whatsoever whether temporary or permanent and...
Hirachand Amersey Vs. Jayagopal Gangabishan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom69; (1924)26BOMLR1049
Marten, J.1. [His lordship after dealing with the facts of the case proceeded.] Now the arguments before us have been interesting and able, and have covered a wide field. In the first place I think it clear that the two mortgages, though taken in the names of the two firms, operated as if they had been taken in the names of the individual partners of those firms. A partnership firm is not a legal entity like a limited liability company. Consequently a conveyance to the firm operates as a conveyance to the individual partners. Authority for this will be found in Ragoonathdas Gopaldas v. Morarji Jutha I.L.R. (1892) 16 Bom. 568 in our High Court, and in Wray v. Wray [1905] 2 Ch. 349. and In re Smith: Johnson v. Bright-Smith [1914] 1 Ch. 937, in England. In the present case this construction is quite consistent with the actual definitions used in the various documents Exs. E to H, viz., 'the creditors,' and 'the mortgagees' and 'the releasors' as there defined.2. That being so, four questi...
HusseIn Abdul Rehman and Co. Vs. Lakhmichand Khetsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR934; 84Ind.Cas.416
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Fawcett in a suit brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff filed the suit for an order under Section 77 for registration of the document in question, dated October 18, 1922 (Exh. A). It purports to have been executed by Hussein Abdul Rehman & Co. to Lakhmichand Khetsey, The material portion of that document is in these terms:--We have taken from you on rent a godown bearing No. three. The Port Trust Number of which is ..in the new Rice Market at Carnac Bunder Port Trust Bombay. We have taken the same on rent by fixing the rent thereof at Rs. 601 per month. We are duly to pay you the said rent as accrues due each month. The period in respect of the said godown is fixed to be from the 1st of Kartak Sud and of the Samvat year 1979 to the 30th of Chaitar Vad of the Samvat year 1980 (i. e., from October 21, 1922, to May 3, 1924) i. e, nineteen months including the intercalary month.2....
Bhagwanji Sankleshwar Vs. the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom182
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Ahmedabad Electricity Company, Ltd., for the supply of electricity to premises situated in another street in substitution of the supply which the plaintiff used to have in respect of premises situated near Dhinkwa Chowki. So far as the supply of electricity to the premises near Dhinkwa Chowki was concerned, it was properly obtained by the plaintiff on a requisition contemplated by the Indian Electricity Act, IX of 1910. It appears, however, that the plaintiff in accordance with the somewhat loose practice, which used to prevail before the year 1920, asked for the supply of electricity for the new premises without making a requisition in writing as required by Clause VI, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Schedule to the Act. There was some correspondence after he asked for this supply. The Company apparently did not insist upon any requisition as required by the Act, and for some other reason ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›