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.
Hirabai Gopaldas Vs. Dhanjibhai B. Kavarana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.145
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 ...
Maharaj Bhanudas Narayanboa Gosavi Vs. Krishnabai Chintaman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1225
Fawcett, J.1. The main question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff has proved that he attained majority within three years of his filing the present suit, that is to say, on or after July 18, 1918. This involves his birth on or after July 18, 1900. But the Subordinate Judge has held that he was really born on October 20, 1899, and, therefore, his suit was time-barred.2. In regard to the evidence as to the plaintiff's age, it has been strongly contended that the document marked A, on which the lower Court has mainly relied, is not admissible in evidence. This is a document purporting to be a certified copy of what is called a ' transfer certificate ' granted by the Head Master of a school at Paithan in the Hyderabad State, on January 20, 1916. The document purports to be a copy of a counter fail, showing the contents of the transfer certificate actually issued, and the copy is made on a printed form, which would presumably correspond to that of the original, According to an entry ...
irangauda Shidramgauda Patil Vs. Irbasappa Gangappa Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1516
Shah, J.1. The only substantial point urged in support of this appeal is that, on the terms of the bond, the appellant is not liable for the amount for which he stood surety. The few facts relating to this appeal are these. While Suit No. 73 of 1919 was pending in the court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar, the following bond was passed by the appellant :-In this case, the pleader for the plaintiff applied to the court to the effect that an inventory had been made through a Commissioner appointed therefor relating to the value of the crops standing on the suit lands and in respect of the moveable property in the house, that the defendants were making away with the property in the house, that some had boon already disposed of, that therefore the defendants should he ordered to produce the property before the Court or that in the alternative proper security should be taken from the defendants. Thereupon the Court ordered that the defendants should furnish the security and ...
irangauda Shidramgauda Patil Vs. Irbasappa Gangappa Dalal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom84
Shah, J.1. The only substantial point urged in support of this appeal is that, on the terms of the bond, the appellant is not liable for the amount for which he stood surety. The few facts relating to this appeal are these: While Suit No. 73 of 1919 was pending in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar, the following bond was passed by the appellant:In this case, the pleader for the plaintiff applied to the Court to the effect that an inventory had been made through a Commissioner appointed therefor relating to the value of the crops standing on the suit lands and in respect of the moveable property in the house, that the defendants were making away with the property in the house, that some had been already disposed of, that therefore the defendants should be ordered to produce the property before the Court or that in the alternative proper security should be taken from the defendants. Thereupon the Court ordered that the defendants should furnish the security and th...
Emperor Vs. Bhangda Fakira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1061; 97Ind.Cas.814
Fawcett, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Honorary Bench Magistrates, Ankleshvar. in respect of an alleged offence under Section 61, Clause (a), of the Bombay District Police Act (Bom. Act IV of 1890). That clause refers to driving a vehicle of any description at any time between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise without a sufficient light or lights, either without lawful cause, or except when there is sufficient moon-light to render such light unnecessary.2. In the present case the prosecution case was that the accused was driving his cart without a light at 8 p.m. on a road in the local area, to which that clause applies, The accused admitted this and said :-I had gone to Broach with the Fatel to bring a buffalo. It was late there. It was not possible for me to go to the village without crossing the road. So I went to the 'Bhagol' (outskirts) of Piraman and gob my name noted down there. I was warned to light a lamp, but I had ...
Vallabbhai Naranji Vs. Chhotalal Purshottamdas and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1442
Fawcett, J.1. In this case a decree was passed at Calcutta against a firm in which it was alleged that the plaintiff was a partner. That decree was passed ex parts after an order had been made by the Court for effecting substituted service upon all the defendants in that suit, and the service was effected by posting the summons on the outer door of their last place of business in Calcutta and duplicates on the Notice Board of the Court. The plaintiff alleges that he was not a partner of this firm and brings a suit for a declaration that the decree is inoperative, the same having been obtained by fraud, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs in the Calcutta suit, from executing that decree.2. There is no doubt that there was a cause of action for bringing this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Surat, inasmuch as the decree has been executed by that Court. According to the judgment of the Court below, the present plaintiff had paid up the amount in ...
Basangouda Budangouda Patil Vs. Rudrappa Maliappa Nidwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom87; (1926)28BOMLR1507
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit for redemption No. 18 of 1023 was rightly dismissed on the ground found by the lower appellate Court, viz., that it was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1, in as much as the previous suit of 1910 had been withdrawn without permission to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. That other suit was 605 of 1910, It was brought by a brother of the present plaintiff and also by the present plaintiff who was then & minor by his mother and guardian Mallava against the mortgagees for redemption of the suit mortgage which was created so long ago as 1869. In that suit of 1910, the then plaintiffs sued as donees under a gift made by one Savakka, the widow of the original mortgagor. They, accordingly, claimed accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and possession of the land.2. On January 24, 1911, that other suit was disposed of in the manner following. The plaintiff's pleader...
Kalu Dalpat Patil Vs. Narayan Dagadu Sutar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom111; (1927)29BOMLR56
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand by the lower appellate Court. Two points have been urged in support of the appeal. In the first place, it is contended that the lower appellate Court is not right in its view that time was not of the essence of the contract on the terms of the contract in question. It may be mentioned that the contract in question is dated April 11, 1917, under which the defendants agreed to sell, to the father of the present plaintiffs, certain lands referred to in the contract for Rs. 300. The payment was to be made after four years from the date of the agreement and Rs. 5 were paid as earnest-money. It appears that the land in question originally belonged to the plaintiffs' father and was sold by him in 1904 to the defendants' father. The plaintiffs obtained possession of the land in question as tenants of the defendants after this agreement and continued in possession for about four years, when they were dispossessed by a decree of the Mamlatdar ...
Emperor Vs. Chhitia Dhuriya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1058; 97Ind.Cas.976
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order of acquittal by the Bench Magistrates at Ankleshvar. The accused in this case was charged, under Section 61, Clause (a), of the Bombay District Police Act (Bom. Act IV of 1890) as amended by subsequent Acts, with having driven along a street a bullock cart, without sufficient light, after more than half an hour after sunset in the town of Ankleshvar. The accused really stated the plain truth that he had brought no light with him from the village whence he came, and was not, therefore, in a position to kindle light as directed by the constable on the way. The learned Magistrates have referred to various considerations, in their judgment, which, in their opinion, afford a lawful excuse for not complying with the rule. They observe that, having regard to the local conditions, many bullock carts come within the area of the town of Ankleshvar from villages, that these villagers are ignorant; people and often times ha...
Kanhailal Badridas Vs. Ismailbhai Kasambhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1498
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. His Lordship held on merits that the land in dispute formed part of the Wadvan lands; and proceeded as follows on the question of law arising in the case:- It will be borne in mind in the first place that we have here suits brought by either party. That is to say, we have the vendor's suit for declaratory relief and possession, and the purchaser's suit for specific performance. The Court was therefore in full season of the dispute between the parties. Both parties had appealed to it and, in the ordinary course, it would have been for the Court to adjudicate between them as to their respective rights to this green land. But later on the Khot applied to the Court for leave to have the boundary disputes settled under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and I gather also, to have a Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI, Rule 9, of the Civil Procedure Code. That application was opposed by the purchaser, but it was nevertheless granted and eventually another survey w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »