Mumbai Court July 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.
Vrandavan Bhaichand Shah Vs. Parshottam Motichand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1481
Shah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover from his two uncles, the defendants, certain sums said to have been realized by them soon after the death of his father. His case was that his father Bhaichand died in 1903, and that before his death Bhaichand and his other brothers Keshavji, parshottam and Mohanlal, had separated. We are not concerned with Keshavji who died about the same time. When Bhaichand died, the plaintiff was not born. The mother of the plaintiff was at her father's house at Tulaja, while Bhaichand's house was at Rojka in the Dhandhuka Taluka. Parshottam and Mohanlal helped to recover the outstandings of the deceased after his death. The plaintiff was born a month or two after Bhaichand's death, and the present suit was filed by him in 1922 soon after he attained majority to recover the amount of the realizations made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that he was really serving during the material time at Um...
Chanvirgouda Shivangouda Patil Vs. the District Magistrate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR52
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under the Indian Lunacy Act (IV of 1912).2. The District Magistrate of Dharwar made an application under Section 88 of the Act for an order for the payment of the cost of maintenance of the lunatic Shivangavda to the District Court of Dharwar against the father of the lunatic. It appears that a reception order was made by the District Magistrate with reference to Shivangavda under Section 14 of the Act on April 1, 1924, without any engagement by a relation to maintain him ; and in consequence the lunatic was detained in an asylum. The amount of maintenance claimed related to a period of three months (from April 1, to June 30, 1924). In the petition the lunatic was stated to have been discharged on June 30, 1924, though this fact is disputed before us. The amount was claimed at the rate of Rs. 1-2-0 per day according to the scale fixed under Rule 18 (ii) of the rules made under Section 91 of the Act on the basis that the father had a pension of Rs. 216 per m...
Premji Virji Vs. Sir Edward Elias Sassoon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom225; (1927)29BOMLR375
Madgavkar, J.1. The defendants are Mill Agents and the plaintiffs entered into an agreement (Ext. A) with them on April 30, 1915, under which in consideration of procuring the sale of all goods manufactured in the two mills of the defendants and financing the sales, the plaintiffs were entitled to their commission specified in the agreement. Subsequently, certain alterations took place in the constitution and name of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, which are not however material for the purpose of this suit. On April 30, 1919, the agency terminated. The plaintiffs sue on an amount for Rs. 52,940-9-0 specified in the plaint as being due to them from the defendants under the agreement.2. This amount may, for clarity's sake, be divided into five kinds: first, interest alleged by the defendants to be due to them in the first place from the dealers who purchased the goods through plaintiffs and ultimately from the plaintiffs themselves and wrongly debited to the plaintiffs. This ite...
Jacob and Co. Vs. A.P. Vicumsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR432
Kemp, J.1. The plaint in this suit states that the plaintiffs on April 9, 1923, lent and advanced to the defendants Rs. 1,500 at interest and that the defendants 'passed a writing in the plaintiffs' favour evidencing the said loan and promising to pay the said amount three months after sight.' The plaint then goes on to say that the plaintiffs presented the said writing to the defendants for sight about January 1925 and by their attorneys' letter of March 1, 1926, called on the defendants to repay the said sum. The claim is for the Rs. 1,500 and interest. The defendant Kallianji Vardhman appears in person and he admits that Rs. 1,500 were due but he says on certain rice transactions, and pleads payments, so that he admits that there was a debt but pleads discharge of it.2. The first point for consideration is whether the suit is based on the document Exhibit A, and whether the plaintiffs can maintain their suit as on the loan. Various authorities have been cited to me. It was held in K...
Jacob and Co. Vs. A.P. Vicumsey and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom437; 102Ind.Cas.138
Kemp, J.1. The plaint in this suit states that the plaintiffs on April 9, 1923, lent and advanced to the defendants Rs. 1,500 at interest and that the defendant 'passed a writing in the plaintiffs' favour evidencing the said loan and promising to pay the said amount three months after sight'. The plaint then goes on to say that the plaintiffs presented the said writing to the defendants for sight about January, 1925, and by their attorneys' letter of March 1, 1926, called on the defendants to re-pay the said sum. The claim is for the Rs. 1,500 and interest. The defendant Kallianji Vardhman appears in person and he admits that Rs. 1,500 were due but he says on certain rice transactions, and pleads payments, so that he admits that there was a debt put pleads discharge of it.2. The first point for consideration is whether the suit is based on the document Ex. A, and whether the plaintiffs can maintain their suit as on the loan. Various authorities have been cited to me. It was held in Kri...
Sadashiv Atmaram Inamdar Vs. Annabhat Venkanbhat Kavathekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1477
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 139-8-0 at the rate of Rs. 46-8-0 per year out of the revenue of the Inam village of Kallol. The plaintiff in the plaint stated that he was in possession of all the lands belonging to defendant No. 3, the adoptive father, except the revenue of the village of Kallol, which was payable to defendant No. 3, The suit, as framed by him, clearly relates to a grant of land-revenue. The defence was, that a certificate from the Collector under the Pensions Act was necessary as the suit amount included Manul Judi and the amount collected from Kadim Inamdar.2. The question, therefore, in this case is, whether a certificate is necessary under Section 4 of Act XXIII of 1871. Both the Courts have decided against the plaintiff and have held that a certificate under the Pensions Act is necessary. From the pleadings it dearly appears to be a suit relating to a grant of land-revenue. The learned pleader for the appellant contends that he ought t...
Sadashiv Atmaram Inamdar Vs. Annabhat Venkanbhat Kavathekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom81
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 189-8-0 at the rate of Rs. 46-8-0 per year out of the revenue of the inam village of Kallol. The plaintiff in the plaint stated that he was in possession of all the lands belonging to Defendant No. 3, his adoptive father, except the revenue of the village of Kallol, which was payable to Defendant No. 3. The suit, as framed by him, clearly relates to a grant of land revenue. The defence was, that a certificate from the Collector under the Pensions Act was necessary as the suit amount included Mamul Judi and the amount collected from Kadim Inamdar.2. The question, therefore, in this case is, whether a certificate is necessary under Section 4 of Act 23 of 1871. Both the Courts have decided against the plaintiff and have held that a certificate under the Pensions Act is necessary. From the pleadings it clearly appears to be a suit relating to a grant of land-revenue. The learned pleader for the appellant con-tends that he ought to...
Hirabai Gopaldas Vs. Dhanjibhai B. Kavarana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom433
Kemp, J.1. The plaintiff, who is twenty years old, sues three of the partners of her late father Gopaldas for the amount standing to her credit in an account in her name in the books of the firm. The three defendants and the deceased Gopaldas, who died on June 12, 1925, were carrying on business as silk merchants at Bombay and at Canton in China under the name of B.F. Kavarana & Co. It had been the practice apparently of the partners to open accounts in the names of their wives or children in the books of the firm and I want to say at once that each of these accounts has to be considered separately. Defendant No. 2 says that the moneys in the plaintiff's account belonged to her father, the deceased Gopaldas, and that as such they are liable to be taken into account between the partners. It-appears that on the dissolution of the partnership Gopaldas and Defendant No. 3 Jivandas, who were brothers were considerably indebted to the firm. Defendant No. 2 contends that the various accounts ...
Hirabai Gopaldas Vs. Dhanjibhai B. Kavarana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR427
Kemp, J.1. The plaintiff, who is twenty years old, sues three of the partners of her late father Gopaldas for the amount standing to her credit in an account in her name in the books of the firm. The three defendants and the deceased Gopaldas, who died on June 12, 1925, were carrying on business as silk merchants at Bombay and at Canton in China under the name of B.F. Kavarana &Co.; It had been the practice apparently of the partners to open accounts in the names of their wives or children in the books of the firm and I want to say at once that each of these accounts has to be considered separately. Defendant No. 2 says that the moneys in the plaintiff's account belonged to her father, the deceased Gopaldas, and that as such they are liable to be taken into account between the partners. It appears that on the dissolution of the partnership Gopaldas and defendant No. 3 Jivandas, who were brothers, were considerably indebted to the firm. Defendant No. 2 contends that the various accounts...
Shivabhai Becharbhai Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.660
Fawcett, J.1. The appellant, Shivabhai, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Kaira of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and abduction in order to murder under Section 364, Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced for the first offence to transportation for life, and for the second to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, the two sentences to run concurrently. The Judge concurred with three out of the four assessors in convicting him. The alleged murder was of one Maran, a patidar, living in Mahommadpura, a village about one mile from the Railway Station of Boriavi. He lived with his mother, Bai Lala, his wife, and two little sons, and was about twenty-five years old. The prosecution case is that, early on the morning of October 10 last, the accused Shivabhai, who is also a patidar, living in the same village, went to Naran's house and inquired whether he was ready to go. Naran said that he would shortly come, and after taking his meal went to Boriavi Station. The accuse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »