Mumbai Court January 1926 Judgments
Nowroji Pudumji Sirdar Vs. Kanga and Sayani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR384
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Messrs. Kanga and Sayani, a firm of solicitors practising in Bombay, obtained an order on 'November 26, 1924, that the Taxing Master of this Court should tax the applicant's bill of costs, charges and expenses between attorney and client in the matter of professional services rendered by them to Sirdr Nowroji Pudumji. The bills were very numerous. It is conceded that any bills lodged according to that order which were connected with work done by members of the solicitors' firm who happened to ba pleaders, on the appellate side of the High Court, would have to be excluded. The remaining bills mostly deal with work done by Messrs. Kanga and Sayani for the opponent in the mofussil Courts,2. On September 28, 1925, the opponent took out a summons against Messrs, Kanga and Sayani for an order that the Taxing Mister should not proceed with the taxing of the bills referred to in the summons, The chief ground on which the summons was taken out was that the bills were...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvan Savlaram Sonar Vs. Dattatraya Jayant Purandhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR686
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by an auction-purchaser asking this Court to intervene in the matter of an order passed by a Subordinate Judge in Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 1924. The opponent was a, judgment-debtor in Darkhast No. 879 of 1923. His property having been sold in execution, he made an application, under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale after deposit of the amount of the purchase money for payment to the decree-holder the amount specified in the proclamation of sale with five per cent, for payment to the purchaser. The applicant absented himself on the day fixed for hearing, so that his application was dismissed for want of appearance. He then applied to set aside the order of dismissal. The learned Judge, dealing with it on its merits as an application under Order IX, Rule 9, came to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to assign any sufficient cause for his absence, But the learned Judge consid...
Tag this Judgment!The American Trading Company Vs. Bird and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1283; 97Ind.Cas.133
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs, a Corporation organised under the laws of the State of Maine, in the United States of America, having its principal place of business at 25, Broad Street, Now York, filed a suit against the defendants, a mercantile firm in Bombay, on a contract, which is said in para. 3 of the plaint to be contained in certain correspondence which took place between the parties, whereby it was alleged that the plaintiffs agreed to sell the defendants, and that the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs, 190 tons haft an inch round steel bars September-October shipment ex-factory, ninety tons at 112 dollars and one hundred tons at 116 dollars per ton respectively o.i.f.c. Bombay, on the terms and conditions further and more particularly appearing in the said correspondence. A copy of the correspondence that had passed between the parties and of their solicitors is annexed to the plaint and marked D. The correspondence included no less than thirty-seven i...
Tag this Judgment!American Trading Co. Vs. Bird and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom596
Macleod, C.J.1. (His Lordship agreed with the learned trial Judge on the question of contract and while dealing with the question of costs proceeded:) That section (Section 35, Civil P.C.) lays down a general rule as to the powers of the Court in awarding costs, and, as it is provided that, if the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing; effect was thereby given to the general rule of practice that costs shall follow the event, unless the Court decides that for some good reason the successful party shall be deprived of the whole or part of his costs.2. Reference has been made to the decision of the House of Lords in Beid, Hewitt and Co. v. Joseph [1918] A.C. 717, where it was held thatthe expression 'the costs shall follow the event' in the second proviso to Order 65, Rule 1 which regulates the costs in jury actions, means that the party who on the whole succeeds in the action gets the general costs of the action, but that, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sayad Abdul Sayad Imam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR484; 95Ind.Cas.54
Marten, J.1. The offence of burglary of which the accused was convicted in the present case was committed by him on July 13, 1925. Ha was convicted by the Sessions Judge on November 4, 1925. After the date of this first offence, but before his conviction for that offence, he committed a second offence of burglary, viz., on August 1, 1925, for which he was sentenced by the Magistrate, on August 26,1925, to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Now, when the Sessions Judge in the present case came to sentence the prisoner, he considered that he was entitled to take into consideration the conviction in respect of the second offence of August 1, and to give him enhanced punishment under Section 75 of the Indian Penal code. Accordingly he passed a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment to take effect on the expiry of the Magistrate's sentence of two years for the second burglary, and to be followed on release by a notification of his residence for five years under Section 565 of the Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvandas Rangildas Vani Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR662
Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.1. Two questions arise before us in appeal The first contention was that the agreement, Exhibit 32, of April 8, 1918, constituted a ' continuing guarantee ' within the meaning of Section 129 of the Indian Contract Act; that it was competent to the plaintiff to revoke it at any time; and that he revoked it, on March 24, 1919, by his application, Exhibit 40. I cannot agree with that contention. It is clear that the plaintiff guaranteed payment of eleven instalments. I think that, having regard to the transaction which was being guaranteed, the conditions of the license, and the terms of the security bond, the plaintiff was not entitled to put an end to his liability by arbitrarily revoking his guarantee.2. The second point was whether the plaintiff was discharged from his suretyship in consequence of the declaration by the revenue authorities that the money which remained unpaid should not be recovered from the licensee Framji, because he would be ruined if it was...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.W. Skipp Vs. L.M. Kelly
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR873
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is an action by a lady for breach of promise of marriage against the defendant, The case was tried by the District Judge of the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore. He formulated the following issue : 'Was there a valid contract of marriage ' Their lordships think perhaps the expression there used ought rather to have been whether there was a definite promise of marriage, because the expression 'contract of marriage' is usually used in another sense, but it is quite plain what he actually meant. He found that issue in favour of the plaintiff. He then went on with another issue : ''If there was such a valid contract, did the defendant or the plaintiff break it either expressly or impliedly?' He found that issue also in favour of the plaintiff. When the case went to appeal the learned Resident in Mysore found that the engagement did subsist up to the time of the defendant's marriage with another lady, and therefore a breaking of the contract was necessarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad Abdul Sayad Imam Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom305
Marten, J.1. The offence of burglary of which the accused was convicted in the present case was committed by him on July 13, 1925. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge on November 4, 1925. After the date of this first offence, but before his conviction for that offence, he committed a second offence of burglary, viz., on August 1, 1925, for which he was sentenced by the. Magistrate, on August 26, 1925, to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Now, when the Sessions Judge in the present case came to sentence the prisoner, he considered that he was entitled to take into consideration the conviction in respect of the second offence of August 1, and to give him enhanced punishment under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly he passed a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment to take effect on the expiry of the Magistrate's sentence of two years for the second burglary, and to be followed on release by a notification of his residence for five years under Section 565 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvandas Rangildas Vani Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom465
Macleod, C.J.1. Two questions arise before us in appeal. The first contention was that the agreement, Ex. 32 of April 8, 1918, constituted a 'continuing guarantee' within the meaning of Section 129 of the Indian Contract Act; that it was competent to the plaintiff to revoke it at any time; and that he revoked it, on March 24, 1919, by his application, Ex. 40. I cannot agree with that contention. It is clear that the plaintiff guaranteed payment of eleven instalments. I think that, having regard to the transaction which was being guaranteed, the conditions of the license, and the terms of the security bond, the plaintiff was not entitled to put an end to his liability by arbitrarily revoking his guarantee.2. The second point was whether the plaintiff was discharged from his suretyship in consequence of the declaration by the revenue authoritities that the money which remained unpaid should not be recovered from the licensee Framji, because he would be ruined if it was; and that the bala...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Nanajee Gayadhani Vs. Ganesh Trimbak Gayadhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR993; 97Ind.Cas.700
Marten, J.1. His lordship, after dealing with certain preliminary matter, proceeded: Next, turning to the main point, this is whether the mortgagees can debit the mortgagor with the whole or some portion of the alleged improvements which they have effected by re-building the property. Now, one difficulty in this case is that the original mortgage in 1851 was not of the entire property, It was only of one-fourth of a particular property. But, in 1914, the defendants, who were then the mortgagees of this one quarter and the absolute owners of the remaining three-quarters, pulled down the whole building and erected a new building consisting of a ground floor and three upper floors. Before us, it is not, I think, contended that the mortgagor can recover his share of this building without allowing for some portion, at any rate, of the expenditure by the mortgagees on the new building. But, undoubtedly, the quantum is in dispute, and to some degree also the principles on which any relief sho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »