Mumbai Court March 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Supadi Lukadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR604
Pratt, J.1. This appeal has been admitted though time-barred and I would deal with it in our revisional jurisdiction.2. The accused has been convicted of an attempt to commit suicide and of the murder of her infant daughter.3. The 'accused Supadi is a girl of seventeen years of age unhappily married to a man called Lukadu. Her mind was distracted by the illness of her infant daughter and she was anxious to go back to her father's house where she would get rest after the drudgery of her unhappy home, and time to attend to her ailing infant. Her father and sister came to see her home but the husband refused because he wanted her to stay at home and do the household work, Supadi was much disappointed and the next morning her father tried to take her back when the husband was absent, But the husband intercepted the cart and forced Supadi to return. This fresh disappointment was too much for Supadi who was already sorely tried by her husband's ill-treatment and the illness of her infant. Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Supadi Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.840a
Pratt, J.1. This appeal has been admitted though time-barred and I would deal with it in our revisional jurisdiction.2. The accused has been convicted of art attempt to commit suicide and of the murder of her infant daughter.3. The accused Supadi is a girl of seventeen years of age unhappily married to a man called Lukadu. Her mind was distracted by the illness of her infant daughter and she was anxious to go back to her father's house where she would get rest after the drudgery of her unhappy home, and time to attend to her ailing infant. Her father and sister came to see her home but the husband refused because he wanted her to stay at home and do the household work. Supadi was much disappointed and the next morning her father tried to take her back when the husband was absent. But the husband intercepted the cart and forced Supadi to return. This fresh disappointment was too much for Supadi who was already sorely tried by her husband's ill-treatment and the illness of her infant. Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Moreshwar Dabholkar Vs. Sadashiv Shivram Nisale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom509; (1925)27BOMLR943
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In Suit No. 333 of 1920 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar, a compromise decree was passed in which it was directed that a sum of over Rs. 32,000 with interest should be paid by annual instalments of Rs. 5,000 a year. Clause 7 was as follows :--In default of payment of any two instalments the plaintiff should treat that the concession regarding the instalments that were allowed was not availed of and should forthwith recover the whole amount due to him at that time including principal and interest by sale of the mortgaged property in suit and of the below-mentioned property given as security and mentioned in clause 8 through Court.2. Clause 8 was as follows:-As the value of the property given as security and mentioned in the mortgage deed is not sufficient to pay off the whole amount due by the defendants, the same together with the immoveable property of the defendants situate at Mauje Khedle Parmanand in the taluka of Nerase ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kishenprasad and Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajaram Ramharakh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom13; (1925)27BOMLR1159; 94Ind.Cas.570
Marten, J.1. This is a very peculiar suit, The defendants are all members of a joint Hindu family, and in effect the plaintiffs are seeking to make all the members of this family liable for the embezzlement by defendant No. 1 with the aid of defendant No 2 of a sum of Rs.40,000 belonging to his employers, the plaintiffs. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have both been prosecuted to conviction for this embezzlement. Defendant No. 2 has since died, and his name was struck out at the trial. As regards defendant No. 5, who is a minor. it is conceded the this only liability is to the extent of the assets received by him from his deceased father, defendant No. 2.2. The details of the case are lengthy, but shortly stated these are the main outlines. The plaintiffs were foolish enough to entrust the first defendant with the cashing of two cheques of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively. I say foolish because the first defendant was only an employee of a few weeks standing on a salary of Rs. 17 per me...
Tag this Judgment!The Coorla Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited Vs. Vallabhdas K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom547; (1925)27BOMLR1168; 94Ind.Cas.575
Marten, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs under a contract dated October 6, 1920, in respect of the sale to the defendants of 75 out of a total of 101 bales of bed-sheets, which were 'bunto' goods, and were to be delivered between November 1920 and February 1921. The original plaintiffs, when the suit was filed on January 19, 1922, were the present second plaintiffs, Messrs. Keshavji Manekchand & Co, They are the sailing agents of the present first plaintiffs, the Coorla Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited, who were added as co-plaintiffs by my order of March 26, 1924.2. It is common ground that on November 19, 1920, the defendants took delivery of six out of the 10] bales and paid for the same. The plaintiffs' case is that at the instance of one Mohanlal Anandji, who was a partner of the defendants or who was acting on their behalf, they gave time to the defendants as regards the balance of the goods, and agreed that the defendants should take delivery in one lot of all ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivas Narayan Prabhu Vs. Shiddika MaidIn Saiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom413; (1925)27BOMLR931
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The property in suit originally belonged to one Dev Naik. He sold it on October 14, 1902, to defendant No. 1, In the meantime the father of the present fifth defendant had brought a suit against Dev Naik and obtained a money decree, in execution of which the suit property was sold by the Court and was purchased by one Mallappa in 1905. On June 15, 1909, defendant No. 1 mortgaged the property to the plaintiff. When Mallappa attempted to take possession of the property which he had purchased at the Court-sale, he was obstructed by the first defendant. On July 1, 1909, Mallappa filed a suit to recover possession. On these bare facts it is clear that the plaintiff had a good title for his mortgage against the auction purchaser. It is suggested now that there had been an order by the Court on a claim presented under Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code, by Mallappa. If proceedings had actually been taken under Order XXI, and an order had been made in favour of defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanchand Gambhirmal Vs. Laxminarayan Ganeshram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom511; (1925)27BOMLR941
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 756-3-0 and costs of the suit alleging that the defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiffs five bales of Fancy Border Dhotes feo Amalner Mill weighing 1250 Ibs. at the rate of Rs. 2-12-9 per Ib., that the delivery was to be made on November 18, 1918, that the market rate of the said goods began to decrease, that the defendant fearing a steady fall in the rate and consequent loss therefrom agreed to sell the goods to plaintiffs at the rate of 2-1-3 per Ib. and that plaintiffs thus stood to gain a profit of Be. 742-3-0 in the bargain, and that the payment of the said profit amount by the defendant to plaintiffs became due on November 18, 1918, the due date for delivery.2. The defendant admitted the agreements in suit but contended that no actual delivery of the goods was intended on either side, that the agreements were by way of wager and were illegal and void.3. The trial Court found that the transactions in suit were wag...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanchand Gambhirmal and ors. Vs. Laxminarayan Ganeshram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.885
1. The plaintiffs sited to recover Rs. 756-3-0 and costs of the suit alleging that the defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiffs five bales of Fancy Border Dhotees of Amalner Mill weighing 1250 lbs. at the rate of Rs. 2-12-9 per lb., that the delivery was to be made on November 18, 1918, that the market-rate of the said goods been to decrease, that the defendant fearing a steady fall in the rate and consequent loss there from agreed to sell the goods to plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 2-1-3 per lb. and that plaintiffs thus stood to gain a profit of Rs. 742 3-0 in the bargain, and that the payment of the said profit amount by the defendant to plaintiffs became due on November 18, 1918, the due date for delivery.2. The defendant admitted the agreements in suit but contended that no actual delivery of the goods was intended on either side, that the agreements were by way of wager and were illegal and void3. The trial Court found that the transactions in suit were wagering transactions an...
Tag this Judgment!Peruri Suryanarayanan Vs. W.L. Narsimha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom415; (1925)27BOMLR938
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act to recover possession of their premises on the ground that they required them bona fide and reasonably for their own use. The premises were let by the plaintiffs to the first defendant, and the first defendant in his turn sub-let a portion of them to the second defendant. The first defendant did not contest the plaintiffs' claim and had vacated the premises in his occupation. The second defendant contested the plaintiffs' right to turn him out. The Judge appears to have dealt with the case as if there was privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant, and dismissed the suit. We must consider, therefore, what is the position of a landlord when he finds himself confronted by a person in occupation holding through his own tenant. 2. Apart from any other question, it is contended that if the landlord sought to eject such a person, the suit would...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Mody and Co. Vs. Mahomedbhai Abdool HoosseIn and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom378; (1925)27BOMLR595; 87Ind.Cas.793
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 2244 of 1923 on June 14, 1923, to evict two defendants from the two shops in Nag-devi Street on the ground that they had given them notice to quit as the plaintiffs wanted the premises for their own use and requirements. On the faith of this requisition the defendants agreed to vacate under a consent decree passed on August 24, 1923, by which they agreed to give possession by January 31, 1924.2. On August 20, 1.924, defendants took out a notice of motion asking the Court to pass an order not only for the restoration of the premises to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' requisition had not been fulfilled, hut also for damages on the ground that the requisition on which they were evicted was mala fide.3. The learned Judge found that the requisition on which the plaint proceeded was a false requisition, and the occupation of the plaintiffs was a pretence. It was not, therefore, bona fide and in the ordinary circumstances...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »