Mumbai Court January 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cox and Company Vs. H. Pestonji and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1264
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants to recover the amount due on forty-eight bills of exchange. These bills were drawn in England against certain shipments of goods which arrived in due course in Bombay. Twenty-five bills were drawn by Messrs, Royle and Binns, twenty by Davies Black and Co. Ltd,; and three by Wilkinson and Warburton Ltd., and they were all negotiated in London through Messrs. Cox and Co. who sent the bills to Bombay to be collected by their branch office. According to the particulars B, D and F to the plaint the bills were all accepted by the defendants and were duly presented on their respective due dates to the defendants for payment, but were dishonoured, and by mutual consent the time for payment was extended to the times mentioned in the said particulars. In spite of the extensions of time so granted the defendants failed to make any payments on the billa, except the sum of 274-12-10 mentioned in the particulars to the...
Gajanan Ramkrishna Mule Vs. Bhaskar Balvant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR380; 94Ind.Cas.116
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover on a promissory note signed by the defendant on May 11, 1925. The promissory note recites an agreement previously arrived at on May 9, between two parties Bhaskar Balvant Kulkarni and the plaintiff. It would appear from the recitals in that agreement that the parties were transacting certain business in grocery at Nagar and Bombay, and the agreement was effected in order to settle the responsibilities between the parties. In consequence of that agreement the promissory note in suit was signed. An application was made to the Court by the plaintiff for an orderagainst the defendant for attachment before judgment on the ground that the defendant was about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that might be passed against him.2. Whether as a matter of fact a defendant has brought himself within the provisions of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, is always a d...
B.N. Lang Vs. Jasvantlal Hathichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR381; 94Ind.Cas.146
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On September 10, 1925, an order was made in chambers on the application of the Official Assignee, in whom had vested by virtue of an order made under Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, all the estate and property of a certain insolvent Mulchand Ratanchand, that the Prothonotary should withdraw without execution the decree of the High Court in Suit No. 1755 of 1922 in favour of one Chandulal Hathibhai against the insolvent, dated June 13, 1922, which had been transmitted by this Court for execution to the Political Agent at Sadra in Mahikantha Agency on June 5,1923.2. The decree-holder then filed an application that this ex parte order should be vacated, and the Judge after hearing arguments directed that the order should be vacated, and that the Official Assignee should pay the applicant'scosts.3. We cannot agree with that order, The property of an insolvent, who has been adjudicated under an order of this Court under Section 17 of the Presid...
Narayan Nanajee Gayadhani and ors. Vs. Ganesh Trimbak Gayadhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom599
Marten, J.1. (After dealing with certain preliminary matter not material to the report his Lordship 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 principl...
Kadarbhai GulamhuseIn Vs. Nanibibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1098
Marten, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting point of Mahomedan law, The question is, whether the deed of gift, Exhibit 55, dated January 9, 1909, by one Ismail in favour of his wife Nanibibi, defendant No, 7, is a valid gift under Mahomedan law. That in its turn depends on whether possession, actual or constructive, was given to the donee. Both the lower Courts have upheld the deed of gift, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, who are claiming against the deed of gift.2. The donor died some eighteen months after the gift, viz , on June 25,1910. Although his widow, as I have already said, is a defendant to the suit, and although the defendants have expressly pleaded in their written statement that possession was delivered on the date of the deed, the widow has not gone into the witness-box, Nor has any oral evidence been called by her to testify as to any-change of possession, or to the handing over of the title deeds, or as to any application to change the names of the owners ...
Kadarbhai GulamhuseIn and ors. Vs. Nanibibi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom559
Marten, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting point of Mahomedan law. The question is, whether the deed of gift, Exhibit 55, dated January 9, 1909, by one Ismail in favour of his wife Nanibibi, Defendant No. 7, is a valid gift under Mahomedan Law. That in its turn depends on whether possession, actual or constructive, was given to the donee. Both the lower Courts have upheld the deed of gift, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, who are claiming against the deed of gift.2. The donor died some eighteen months after the gift, viz., on June 25, 1920. Although his widow, as I have already said, is a defendant to the suit, and. although the defendants have expressly pleaded in their written statement that possession was delivered on the date of the deed, the widow has not gone into the witness-box. Nor has any oral evidence been called by her to testify as to any change of possession, or to the handing over of the title-deeds, or as to any application to change the names of the owner...
Valli Aba Kutchi Vs. the Nasik Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR535
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff purchased an old dilapidated house in Nasik bearing Municipal No. 759, and abutting the Gayadhani Lane on the south, for Rs. 10,000, by a sale-deed, Exhibit 68, dated May 29, 1922. On June 26 following, he applied to the Municipality for permission to build a new house on the site thereof. The Chief Officer, thereupon, ordered that he should leave a space of eight feet on the south side all along the whole length of his house, which was eighty-nine feet seven inches from east to west, for being incorporated into the street adjoining it, and build on the remaining portion.2. That was an illegal order. Admittedly, when the plaintiff asked for permission to build, a regular line of the street had not been prescribed. The Chief Officer could not order the plaintiff to set back his land. He could only lay down in what manner the new building should be erected having regard to the provisions of the Act.3. The plaintiff then appealed to the general bo...
In Re: Mangru Feku Momin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR302
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application in revision by the complainant Mangru Feku Momin asking this Court to set aside the order of compensation passed against Mm by the First Glass Magistrate of Malegaon for the payment of Rs. 10 to each of the eight accused. His complaint of assault was dismissed and this order for compensationordered. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal declined to set aside the order.2. The main ground in support of the application is that the Magistrate, after recording the evidence of the complainant, went to the alleged scene of offence, questioned a certain number of people there suo mote, made no note or record and then returned and examined one out of the crowd, Janmahomed, as a Court witness. He then proceeded to discharge the accused and made the order of compensation in question.3. In view of the unusual procedure adopted, a report was called for from the Magistrate and it is now before us. In effect all these facts are not denied by the Magistrate and he...
Valli Aba Kutchi Vs. Nasik Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom347; 95Ind.Cas.262
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff purchased an old dilapidated house in Nasik bearing Municipal No, 759, and abutting the Gayadhani Lane on the south for Rs. 10,000, by a sale deed, Exhibit 68, dated May 29, 1922. On June 26 following, he applied to the Municipality for permission to build a new house on the site thereof. The Chief Officer, thereupon, ordered that he should leave a space of eight feet on the south side all along the whole length of his house, which was eighty-nine feet seven inches from east to west, for being incorporated into the street adjoining it, and build on the remaining portion.2. That was an illegal order. Admittedly, when the plaintiff asked for permission to build, a regular line of the street had not been prescribed. The Chief Officer could not order the plaintiff to set back his land. He could only lay down in what manner the new building should be erected having regard to the provisions of the Act.3. The plaintiff then appealed to the general body on Septemb...
Khushaldas Gokaldas Vs. Chimanlal Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR659
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The original defendants in Suit No. 693 of 1922, in the First Glass Subordinate Judge's Court at Ahmedabad, made an application to this Court that security should be taken from the plaintiffs for the due performance of any order which His Majesty in Council might make on the appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court confirming, with certain modifications, the decree of the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. The decree directed that certain money payments should be made to the plaintiffs. The defendants applied to this Court for a certificate for leave to appeal to Privy Council, and a certificate was refused. The decree was, accordingly, executed and the defendants have paid the amounts mentioned in the decree of this Court to the plaintiffs. Thereafter the defendants obtained from the Privy Council leave to appeal. They, then, applied to this Court for an order that the respondents should give security for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »