Mumbai Court March 1925 Judgments
Habib Rowji Vs. Standard Aluminium and Brass Works Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom321; (1925)27BOMLR574
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs were a joint-stock company incorporated on February 27, 1920, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913, and having their registered office at Thakurdwar without the Fort. The capital of the company was rupees twenty-five lacs divided into 25,000 ordinary shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. On March 31, 1920, the defendant applied for one hundred shares of the said company and duly paid the application money thereon viz., Rs. 1,000. Pursuant to the resolution in that behalf the board of directors of the plaintiff company allotted to the defendant one hundred shares, and the necessary allotment letter duly addressed was duly posted to the defendant. By a resolution passed on July 20, 1910, the board of directors of the plaintiff company made a first call of Rs. 15 per share upon the members of the said company payable on or before August 5, 1920. Due notice of the said resolution was given to the defendant, and he was requir...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Mahadu Tandel Vs. Ramchandra Mahadu Tandel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom425; (1925)27BOMLR921
Crump, J. 1. The plaintiff filed this suit as the adopted son of Mahadu Dharmaji who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Defendant No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit had three wives defendants Nos, 3, 4 and 5. Defendant No. 2 is the son of the deceased defendant No. 1 by defendant No 5. Defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the daughters of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 5. The suit was one for partition Plaintiff claimed a share of one half.2. Defendant No. 4 alone filed a written statement. The main defence raised was that the adoption of plaintiff was not proved but it was also urged that plaintiff's share on the basis of the adoption would be 1/21 and not J. Certain minor points were raised as to the details of the proposed partition.3. The suit so far is in no way unusual but certain points have arisen in consequence of the course followed in the lower Court. Further it is conceded that defendant No. 2 was born after the date of the alleged adoption, and this circumstance has ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Mahton Vs. Ambika Prasad Tewari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR853
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing a suit brought by the appellant for the enforcement of a mortgage executed in his favour by one Jai Gobind Tewari on August 28, 1907. Jai Gobind Tewari was a member of a joint Hindu family subject to the Mitakshara and apparently managed the family business,2. The suit was brought before the Subordinate Judge of Basti against all the members of the joint family; and Home transferees of part of the property were joined as defendants.3. The plaintiff who is a money-lender alleges that Jai Gobind Tewari had borrowed from him two sums of money which in the aggregate amounted to Rs. 2715 on two bonds, for legal family necessity, and for this amount he passed the mortgage bond in suit.4. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6, who alone contested the suit, urged it was not for legal necessity or family benefit as the plaintiff alleged.5. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim for sale of t...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Waman Gadre Vs. Saraswati Ganesh Gadre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom432; (1925)27BOMLR692
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and lie was ordered to pay the defendants' costs. When the decree was drawn up the plaintiff contended that the coats payable by the plaintiff were not in accordance with the judgment. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed their costs on the valuation of the plaintiff's suit. Defendant No. 3 was also allowed his costs on the same value. The plaintiff then applied to the Judge to alter the method of taxation as appearing in the decree. The Judge declined to alter the taxation. The plaintiff has appealed, it would appear, not against the decree, which embodied the directions given in the judgment, but against the taxation of the costs. We doubt very much whether an appeal lies under any of the provisions of the Code against an order of the Judge directing how costs are to be taxed. However that may be, it is quite clear that the defendants were entitled to their costs taxed on the basis of the valuation of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Kathu Jairam Gujar Vs. Vishvanath Ganesh Javadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom470; (1925)27BOMLR682
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that he and one Shankar Shrikrishna Deo were engaged as pleaders by defendant No. 1 in Suit No. 273 of 1917 filed against him in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia by one Bhagwan Devidas; that on September 23, 1917, when the vakilpatra was given to them, defendant No. 1 made a special contract in the following terms :-I have this day given you a vakilpivtra in the above suit and agree to give you both Rs. 500 as Inam or reward in case you obtain ' full success ' for me in this or in the High Court, and would further give over to you possession of survey No. 58 of Shahada, comprising 3 acres and 36 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 30, for religious or charitable purposes.2. It is admitted that Survey No. 58 was part of the property in dispute in the suit. The suit was dismissed in the first Court on March 22, 1919, but in the first appeal the High Court granted relief to the plaintiff with regard to a portio...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kasturbai Vs. Vanmalidas Lakmidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom436; (1925)27BOMLR616
Crump, J.1. This matter arises out of a suit No. 4310 of 1923, which was heard by Mulla J., and disposed off by him on July 3, 1924. The suit was one. by the plaintiff Kasturbai for a dissolution of partnership and for partnership accounts. Among the other defences pleaded by the defendant., he said that there was no partnership between himself and Kastuibai, and that a certain agreement evidencing the partnership had not been acted upon. The learned Judge who heard the suit came to a conclusion adverse to the defendant upon that issue, and, in the course of doing so, he expressed himself very strongly as to the conduct of the defendant in the suit. The following passage from his judgment shows his opinion upon this matter:-As regards the defendant I have no hesitation in saying that it is rarely that one comes across a witness of his typo, who is not ashamed in telling a aeries of lies barefacedly in this Court. The story about his brother being the owner I hold in a false invention.2...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Mohanlal Vs. Ambalal Hargovan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom423; (1925)27BOMLR685
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant before us was the plaintiff' in a suit pending in the Court of the first-class Subordinate Judge of Kaira. It was called on for settlement of issues on Jane 15, 1,922. At that time the applicant was not present in Court, and the suit was dismissed for default. He came into the Court about two hours later and told the Judge that his train was late on account of an accident, and also pointed out the difficulty of getting tongas. The applicant was asked by. the Court why he did not wire from Mehmadabad. The applicant replied that ha did not do so as he was to come. He adduced evidence that tongas were not available; that the train was late; and that he had gone into the Mehmadabad station to wire to the Court. An application was made thereafter (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 1922), to restore the suit to the board. The Judge considered the evidence of the applicant was untrustworthy, and that even if the train by which the applicant; was trav...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshiram Baluram Vs. Misrilal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom444; (1925)27BOMLR690
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The present applicants filed suit No. 40 of 1919 in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Dhulia passed by V. 8. Nerurkar, Joint against the present opponent Misrilal Chunilal and another person, against whom afterwards the claim was withdrawn. Summons was served on the opponent on February 10, 1919. He did not appear at the hearing though duly served, and an' ex parte decree was passed against him on April 15, 1919, for Rs. 2,366-8-0. The opponent then filed suit No. 276 of 1919 on July 16, 1919, in the Dhulia Court against the present applicants for a declaration that the ex parts decree obtained by the petitioners against him in suit No. 40 of 1919 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and that he came to know of the decree on July 4, 1919. Two preliminary issues were raised : (1) whether plaintiff (Misrilal) proved that the service of summons on himself as defendant in suit No. 40 of 1919 was effected fraudulently as alleged; (2) if not, t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Lalbu Vs. Mohanlal Gokaldas Javeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom385; (1925)27BOMLR687
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this suit a decree for specific performance was passed against the defendant on February 26, 1923. The plaintiff did not take the necessary steps to produce the purchase money, so the defendant took out a darkhast on June 21, 1923, for payment of the purchase money in order that the matter might be completed. The plaintiff then complained that the defendant had pulled down some of the bricks out of the property in dispute with a view to causing damage to him. A commissioner was appointed, and he made a report showing the present condition of the building on November 17, 1923. The commissioner could not decide whether the defendant had caused wilful damage to the building since the date of the decree. On the report the First Class Subordinate Judge made an order that time should be given to the defendant to replace the property in the suit In the same condition as it was at the date of the suit. That being done, the plaintiff should lodge the money in Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarao Pandurang Barve Vs. Balvant Keshav Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom404; (1925)27BOMLR678
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this ease obtained a decree in his favour in suit No. 28 of 1916. The following amended decree was passed by the appellate Court:-The decree of the lower Court is altered and it is ordered as follows :-The defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 4,384-2-2 together with interest thereon by equal four annual instalments. The first instalment should be paid on the date the 5th of the month of June in the year 1919. Interest on each instalment should be paid at the rate of four per cent, from May 9, 1918, till payment of the whole amount. If he fails to pay the instalment, interest at the rate of six per cant, will continue to run from the dates on which the instalments will not be paid. The defendant should henceforth pay the Government assessment until delivery of possession to the plaintiff if occasion for such delivery to the plaintiff arises. If the plaintiff has paid the amount of (Government assessment after May S, 1918, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›