Mumbai Court February 1926 Judgments
Abdulla Shariff Vs. Mahomed Aba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR500
Marten, J.1. This is a suit by a master to recover moneys entrusted to his servant and subsequently lost, The claim is baaed on an alleged agreement to refund the moneys and an entry in the plaintiffs' books made by the defendant admitting his liability. The defence is that the moneys were stolen from the defendant and were lost without any negligence on his part, that the above entry was made under coercion and undue influence and a threat of criminal proceedings, and that the defendant is under no liability to pay, and that the plaintiffs had abandoned theirclaim.2. The case comes on as a contested short cause but was better fitted for the long cause list, Unfortunately, the defendant is not now represented by counsel, and accordingly I am without the assistance I should ordinarily get and which I should particularly welcome in the present case for it seems to me to be one of considerable difficulty. I am accordingly in very much the same unfortunate position as I was in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Dorabji Vs. Keshavji Damji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1162
Marten, J.1. This is an judgment suit brought by a purchaser from the mortgagees of the suit property against the defendant, who claims under an agreement for a lease executed by the mortgagors, after the date of the mortgage, but without the consent of the mortgagees. After the suit was brought, the defendant gave up possession of the suit property, but he contends that he is entitled to set off against the compensation claimed by the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,400 which he has deposited with his landlords, the mortgagors, under his tenancy agreement.2. As regards the title to the property, we are dealing with leasehold land held, under a lease of April 19, 1920, for a term of fifteen years from January 1,1920. That lease included a cinema theatre and certain other lands. It is a portion of the other lands which is the subject of this suit, and I shall refer to that portion as the suit property. On June 29, 1920, the lessees assigned their interest to one Francisco Battistessa and other...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Ganesh Jamsandekar Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR550; 95Ind.Cas.515
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This case, which was filed in the District Court of Ratnagiri against the Secretary of State for India, was dismissed by the District Judge on a preliminary point, viz., that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant was awarded his costs, and when those coats came to be taxed, if the matter had not gone any further, the defendant would have been entitled to one-fourth of the full pleaders' fees. An appeal was preferred to the High Court, which set aside the order dismissing the suit, and remanded the case for retrial to the District Court. The District Court again dismissed the suit, and an appeal to the High Court was also dismissed.2. A question arose with regard to the taxation of the Vakils' fees in the District Court, and it appears that the defendant was allowed the full fee for the hearing of the preliminary point and again a full fee for the final hearing. An application was made to the District Court for amending the taxation. The Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Madivallappa Irbhadrappa Vs. Mallappa Somappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR711
Coyajee, J.1. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was instituted by Madivallappa Irbhadrappa, as the manager of a joint Hindu family, to recover damages for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that Basappa, the husband of defendant No. 1, had entered into an agreement for the purchase of twenty-five bales of yarn at a specified rate; that Basappa deposited the sum of Rs. 2,000 and agreed to pay the balance on December 8, 1918; that he failed to take delivery of the goods and thereby broke the contract; that the contract had been made with Rachappa, who was then conducting the family, business as its manager; that Rachappa was dead, and the plaintiff had succeeded him as the manager of the joint family business.2. The defence was that the contract was made with Rachappa personally and not as manager of the family-business and the suit should, therefore, have been brought by his son Kalyan-appa, and not by the plaintiff; that the agreement was by way of wager; and that...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Ganesh Jamsandekar Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom367
Macleod, C.J.1. This case, which was filed in the District Court of Ratnagiri against the Secretary of State for India, was dismissed by the District Judge on a preliminary point, viz., that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant was awarded his costs, and when those costs came to be taxed, if the matter had not gone any further, the defendant would have been entitled to one-fourth of the full pleaders' fees. An appeal was preferred to the High Court, which set aside the order dismissing the suit, and remanded the case for re-trial to the District Court. The District Court again dismissed the suit, and an appeal to the High Court was also dismissed.2. A question arose with regard to the taxation of the vakils' fees in the District Court, and it appears that the defendant was allowed the full fee for the hearing of the preliminary point and again a full fee for the final hearing. An application was made to the District Court for amending the taxation. The Judge said:This ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivputrappa Parappa Kamshetti Vs. Shivrudrappa Kalappa Huli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR708
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from raising the plaint wall and placing their roof thereon and from interfering with it in any way. Defendant No. 1 denied the claim, and contended that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the plaint wall; that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were the joint owners thereof; that each had a right to make use of the wall; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction sought.2. Before the Subordinate Judge the parties put in a Pursis as follows:-As it is settled that the issue whether the wall in dispute in this case is of the independent ownership of the plaintiff or of the joint ownership of both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is not to be decided in this suit, we are not going be examine any witnesses.3. So that the Judge said :-On the pleading of defendants themselves I think the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. If the plaintiff is the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Ramanujachary Vs. Pohoomal Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1275
Norman Maclead, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against Messrs. Charry and Charry, a firm, to recover the sum of Rs. 2,500 with interest thereon said to be due on a promissory note, dated November 2, 1923, which had matured on January 10, 1924. Under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2, a summons was issued in accordance with form No. 4 of Appendix to the First Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Thereupon one P.S. Ramanujachary applied for an order that leave should be granted to him to appear and defend the suit, or, in the alternative, to appear and defend the suit to the extent that he was not a partner at any time material to the suit and was not liable for the plaintiffs' claim. In his affidavit in supportof the summons the applicant alleged that the partnership between himself and T.S. Varadachary in the firm of Gharry and Gharry was dissolved by mutual consent so far back as April 18,1923.3. The following order was made by the Chamber Judge on March 20, 1924, ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Shivram Kulkarni Vs. Narayan Chintaman Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR543; 95Ind.Cas.267
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In Suit No, 53 of 1915 in the Rajapur Court, in the Ratnagiri District a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,450 payable by instalments. Rupees 1,000 out of the decretal amount was to carry interest at three per cent. The defendant defaulted, so that the plaintiff took out a Dar-khast in May 1920. The defendant replied to the Darkhast with a Darkhast of his own asking to be relieved against forfeiture. The Darkhast for some reason or other did not come to a hearing before the Subordinate Judge until February 26, 1923, when the default was excused, but the Judge directed that the balance of the decretal amount should carry interest at seven per cent. instead of three. In appeal, the District Judge confirmed this order.2. We have now before us a sale deed of December 30, 1921, by the judgment-debtor, of a portion of his property for Rs. 1,500, and it was intended that the purchaser should pay out of the consideration money sufficient to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Thana Vs. Chaturbhuj Radha Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR548; 95Ind.Cas.513
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The claimant asked for a reference to the District Court against the award of the Collector with regard to his land measuring seven acres, seven gunthas and eight annas, situate on the road between Chembur and Ghatkoper. The Acquiring Officer awarded Rs. 500 per acre. The Assistant Judge increased the award to ten annas a square yard. from the decision of J.A. Saldanha, ference No, 79 of 1922. He depended for that valuation on a sale to the claimant actual on August 29, 1919, at ten annas a square yard; and unless that sale could be avoided on the ground that it was not a fair and bona fide sale, then it obviously afforded a good basis for an award. The Acquiring Officer said :-The point for decision is whether the rate of ten annas a square yard for Its 1-8 a square yard could be accepted as a rate representing the true market. value of the and at the date of the declaration. The first transaction in this business was dated August 28, 1919. We should find o...
Tag this Judgment!Sourendra Mohan Sinha Vs. Hari Prasad Sinha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1260
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is an application to vary the Order in Council. The order has been already passed, and it could only be under exceptional circumstances that their Lordships could humbly advise that another order should be passed.2. In the suit judgment was given for the plaintiffs against the defendants for a certain sum.3. On appeal to the King in council their Lordships humbly advised His Majesty to reduce substantially the sum for which judgment had been given, and to make the sum still decreed payable eight months after the date of the receipt of the Order by the High Court.4. The defendants having been substantially successful in the appeal, the Order in Council in accordance with the ordinary practice was issued to them : and in ordinary course ought to have been lodged by them in the High Court. They have not however done so, and the plaintiffs cannot therefore so far get execution. Hence this application, The plaintiffs and petitioners have not sufficiently adverted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »