Mumbai Court October 1925 Judgments
Abdul Vahed Abdul Karim Vs. Hasanali Alibhai Ghasia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR562
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that he borrowed from defendant No. 1 Rs. 2,200 on December 24, 1920, and Rs. S00 on December 28, 1020, on the security of the following shares :-Emperor Edward Mill Shares Nos. 3472 and 878.Colaba Mill Share No. 3375.Tata Hydro Ordinary Share No. 1740,Crescent Mill Shares Nos. 13552 and 3185.2. Crescent Mill Share No. 13552, though belonging to the plaintiff, stood in the name of defendant No. 1 in the Company's register. Certificates of the six shares with blank transfer forms signed by the plaintiff for the other five shares were kanded to defendant No. 1 at the time of the loan. On June 11, 1923, plaintiff redeemed the shares by payment of Rs. 2,632-13 to defendant No. 1 who after about a month returned the Emperor Edward Mill shares and the Colaba Mill share with the respective transfer forms, and stated that he could not find the other shares and transfer forma.3. Defendant No. 2 was the brother of defendant No. 1 wh...
Tag this Judgment!G.i.P. Railway Company Vs. A.B. Tamboli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR718
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff is the owner and manager of the firm of Tamboli Brothers & Co., who do business as commission agents in Amalner in the East Khandesh District. He is the owner of the ginning factory and press at that place, He used, in course of his business, to send finished pressed bales of cotton to various mills in Bombay, and, on February 5, 1920, he tendered a consignment of one hundred and twenty eight bales at Amalner station and, on February 7, 1920, another consignment of one hundred and sixty-two bales for the purpose of being carried and delivered to the Swadeshi Mills of Bombay at Kurla. Owing to a shortage of waggons at that time, there was some delay in the despatch of goods traffic at this station, and although the bales were accepted by the railway company for despateh to Bombay, they were stacked on a portion of the goods platform to await their turn as waggons became available. Accordingly, on February 16, 1920, one hundred and sixteen bales out of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Flor a Sassoon Vs. Ardeshir H. Mama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom189
Macleod, C.J.1. After stating facts the judgment held that there was no concluded contract between the parties but that on this assumption that there was a concluded contract, the lower Court had not correctly interpreted the law regarding damages claimed in the alternative in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property and proceeded further after reproducing Section 19 of Specific Belief Act). It is important to note that the word 'compensation ' is used and not '' damages' and although a person suing for specific performance may ask for compensation in substitution for specific performance, that prayer is subsidiary to the claim for specific performance and not strictly speaking alternative. In my [opinion the second paragraph of the section shows that it is for the Court to decide whether specific performance should be granted, and, if not, what compensation should be awarded. The measure of compensation is entirely in the discretion of the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Raghvendra Balasaheb Huilgolkar Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR559
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the Inamdar of three villages in the Gadag Taluka, sued for a declaration that the survey carried out by the defendants was illegal, and that it could not affect the plaintiffs rights in any way, and for an injunction to the defendants not to recover the expenses of the said survey from the plaintiff,2. On December 15, 1921, Government purporting to act under the powers conferred by Section 185 A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. Act V of 1879), and in modification of Government Notification in the Revenue Department, No. 263, dated January 12, 1904, as subsequently amended, by which certain classes of villages and lands were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Land Record of Rights Act, 1903 (Bom, Act IV of 1903), was pleased to cancel the said order of exemption so far as it applied to the lands in the villages of the Dharwar District mentioned in the Notification and to direct that the provisions of Chapter X-A of the...
Tag this Judgment!Raghvendra Balasaheb Huilgolkar Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom373
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the inamdar of three villages in the Gadag Taluka, sued for a declaration that the survey carried out by the defendants was illegal, and that it could not affect the plaintiff's right in any way, and for an injunction to the defendants not to recover the expenses for the said survey from the plaintiff.2. On December 15, 1921, Government purporting to act under the powers conferred by Section 135A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. Act 5 of 1879) and in modification of Government Notification in the Revenue Department. No. 263, dated January 12, 1904, as subsequently amended, by which certain class of villages and lands were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Land Record of Rights Act, 1903 (Bom. Act 4 of 1903), was pleased to cancel the said order of exemption so far as it applied to the lands in the villages of the Dharwar district mentioned in the notification and to direct that the provisions of Chapter X-A of the said Code shoul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›