Mumbai Court November 1925 Judgments
Framroz Eduljee Dinshaw Vs. Mahomed Essa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR141; 94Ind.Cas.21
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 40,000 with interest at six par cent from March 27, 1922, until judgment, on a promissory note, which was worded as follows :-March, 27,1922.On demand we promise to pay in Bombay to Mr. F.E. Dinshaw or order the sum of forty thousand rupees for value receivedLudha Ebrahim & Co.2. Suleman Abdul Wahed, who carried on business in the name of Ludha Ebrahim & Co. with three other partners, having died, the record was altered by substituting as defendants the three surviving partners, the executors of the will of Suleman,3. At the hearing the defendants did not appear.4. The learned Judge passed a decree for the principal amount with interest at six per cent only from the date of the filing of the suit, on the ground that no demand had previously been made, following the decision in Best v. Haji Muhammad Saut (1898) I.L.R. 23 Mad. 185. The plaintiff has appealed.6. Under the provisions of Section 80 of the Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidas Goculdas Dossa Vs. Ismail Gafoor Kassum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1262
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Gaffoor Cassum died on or about February 25, 1922, leaving two sons Ismail and Ibrahim, a widow and a daughter. Ismail obtained letters of administration to the estate of Gaffoor on December 19, 1922, under Section 4 of the Probate and Administration Act. The estate of Gaffoor, therefore, was vested in him. It is true, underMahomedan law, in the absence of any Letters of Administration being granted, the estate vests in the heirs. But, I think, that the statutory vesting under the Probate and Administration Act must take effect in substitution for the vesting in the heirs which exists between the death of the deceased and the grant of the letters,2. Gaffoor was a tenant of certain stables, rent of which was in arrears at his death. Ismail continued the business, and the arrears of rent continued, with the result that in August, 1923, a settlement was arrived at by which Ismail agreed to pay rent in all Rs. 13,951 up to August 6, 1923, which included the ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidas Goculdas Dossa and ors. Vs. Ismail Gafoor Kassum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Bom16
Macleod, C.J.1. One Gaffoor Cassum died on or about February 25, 1922 leaving two sons Ismail and Ibrahim, a widow and a daughter. Ismail obtained Letters of, Administration to the estate of Gaffoor on December 19, 1922, under Section 4 of the Probate and Administration Act. The estate of Gaffoor,' therefore, was vested in him. It is true, under Mahomedan law in the absence of any Letters of Administration being granted, the estate vests in the heirs. But, I think that the statutory vesting under the Probate and Administration Act must take effect in substitution for the vesting In the heirs which exists between the death of the deceased and the grant of the Letters.2. Gaffoor was a tenant of certain stables, rent of which was in arrears at his death. Ismail continued the business, and the arrears of rent continued, with the result that in August 1923, a settlement was arrived at by which Ismail agreed to pay rent in all Rs. 13,951 up to August 6, 1923, which included the rent that was...
Tag this Judgment!Pestonji Shapurji Narelwalla Vs. Jamshedji Nowroji Gamadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR138; 94Ind.Cas.9
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a summary suit against the defendant to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000 with interest thereon on a hundi dated December 19, 1924. The defendant did not obtain leave from the Judge, as provided in Order XXXVII, Rule 3, to appear and to defend the suit. Accordingly under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, in default of his obtaining such leave or of his appearance and defence in pursuance thereof, the allegations in the plaint should be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree. Order XXXVII contemplates, then, that the Court shall pass a decree in a summary suit where the defendant has obtained no leave to appear and defend, But in this case it seems that the defendant's attorney was allowed to appear to make an application for the stay of execution of the decree up to the following Diwali, or in the alternative for payment of the decree by instalments. An objection was raised at the time on behalf of the plaintiff that the def...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abasbhai Abdulhussein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR272
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal by Government from the decision of the First Class Magistrate of Poona acquitting the three accused, who were charged-as to accused No. 1 under Section 4 and as to accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act-(Act IV of 1887). The learned Magistrate heard the case throughout, bat upheld an objection taken by the accused that the search warrant, which purported to have been issued under Section 6 of the Act, was bad, He accordingly held that an unlawful procedure had been adopted in arresting the accused without complaint and without warrant and that the case could not now be converted into a non-cognizable case and must be dismissed. We are told by the learned Government Pleader that this last point was never argued at the trial but was first taken by the learned Magistrate in the course of his judgment.2. The question of the legality of the warrant is in the nature of a preliminary objection and we agree with the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abasbhai AbdulhusseIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom195
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal by Government from the decision of the First Class Magistrate of Poona acquitting the three accused, who were charged - as to Accused No. 1 under Section 4 and as to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act(Act IV of 1887). The learned Magistrate heard the case throughout, but upheld an objection taken by the accused that the search warrant, which purported to have been issued under 8. 6 of the Act, was bad. He accordingly held that an unlawful procedure had been adopted in arresting the accused without complaint and without warrant, and that the case could not now be converted into a non-cognizable case and must be dismissed. We are told by the learned Government Pleader that this last point was never argued at the trial, but was first taken by the learned Magistrate in the course of his judgment.2. The question of the legality of the warrant is in the nature of a preliminary objection and we agree with the learned Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Maharaj Kumar Sataya Niranjan Chakravarti Vs. Ram Lal Kaviraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR753
Dunedin, J.1. The present action is as to the right to the minerals in a Mouza at Sultanpur. The plaintiffs are the Zamindars of a Zamindari within the bounds of which the said Mauza lies. The defendants are the putnidars and darputnidars of the said Mouza. The defendnnts are working, and, as the High Court have found-as to which finding no dispute has been raised before this Board-have worked the mines on a large scale since 1894 and to the knowledge of the plaintiff's since 1898,2. The present suit was raised in 1915. The defendants rely upon three separate defences. First, they say that being putuidars they are in right of all the Zamindari rights appertaining to the territory embraced in the putni lease unless exception has been expressed, and that no exception of minerals was expressed. Secondly, they say that the putni lease gives them the right to the minerals in express terms. Thirdly, they say that the suit is barred either under article 120 or article 144 of the Schedule to t...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Trustee of Bombay Vs. Salebhai Sarafally Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR403; 94Ind.Cas.673
Taraporewala, J.1. This suit was originally filed by one Vanmalidas Bhicabhai, as a trustee of certain premises situate t Sham Sett Street outside the Fort of Bombay, against the first defendant, who is the owner of certain premises situate to the north of the said trust premises, claiming inter alia that the first defendant, his servants, agents and workmen might be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from encroaching or trespassing on the trust premises as they had done on October 8, 9 and 10, 1924, in the manner following, that is to say, that the defendant and his servants, agents and workmen had entered upon the ground floor of the trust premises and upon a Chowkin the trust premises adjoining the southern wall of the defendant's premises for the purpose of plastering the said southern wall. The original second defendant was one of the trustees of the said premises with the plaintiff, and as he refused to join in the filing of the suit, he was made a party defendan...
Tag this Judgment!The Pioneer Alkali Works Limited Vs. AmiruddIn Shalebhoy Tyebji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR411; 94Ind.Cas.681
Taraporewala, J.1. In the first suit the plaintiff company claim to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 3,058-7-7 with interest thereon alleging that the said amount is due by the defendantas the shareholder in the plaintiff company in respect of the third call alleged to have been made by the plaintiff company. The only issue in the suit is whether the call was legally made and is binding on the defendant under the articles of association of the company.2. There was one resolution passed by the directors making the second and the third calls. That resolution is as follows:-Resolved that the second (or the first as the case may be) call be made on June 30,1922, and the third (or the second as the case may be) call be also made payable two months after that date.3. Article 38 of the articles of association provides for the making of calls in the following terms :-The board may, from time to time, make such calls upon the shareholders in respect of all moneys for the time being unpai...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Alkali Works, Limited Vs. AmiruddIn Shalebhoy Tyebji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom341
Taraporewala, J.1. In the first suit the plaintiff company claim to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 3,058-7-7 with interest thereon alleging that the said amount is due by the defendant as the shareholder in the plaintiff company in respect of the third call alleged to have been made by the plaintiff company. The only issue in the suit is whether the call was legally made and is binding on the defendant under the Articles of Association of the company.2. There was one resolution passed by the directors making the second and the third calls. That resolution is as follows:Resolved that the second (or the first as the case may be) call be made on June 30, 1922, and the third (or the second as the case may be) call be also made payable two months after the date.3. Article 38 of the Articles of Association provides for the making of calls in the following terms:The Board may, from time to time, make such calls upon the shareholders in respect of all moneys for the time being unpaid ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »