Mumbai Court May 1927 Judgments
Carl Franz Adolf Otto Ingenohl Vs. Wing on and Company (Shanghai), Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR753
Viscount Haldane, J.1. [For the purposes of this report, only the following extracts are material]. Meantime, in August 1922, the appellant had sued OJsen & Co. in the Supreme Court of the Phillippine Islands to recover the costs awarded him by the Court in Hongkong. The trial Judge decided in the appellant's favour and the Court of Appeal reversed this judgment, holding that the judgment of the Hongkong Court was erroneous and not binding on the Phillippine Courts. Since then, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, an appeal from this decision has been allowed. Holmes J., who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court, held, in language of characteristic precision, that it would bo improper for a foreign Court to review the judgment of the Hongkong Court about the rights of the appellant in the trade marks and names in Hongkong. In this he appears to have been applying a broad principle which has been fully recognised in this country in such cases as Castrique v. Imriem...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Sassoon and Sons Limited Vs. the International Banking Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1181
Viscount Sumner, J.1. The appellants in this case were sued in the High Court at Calcutta, as drawers of four bills of exchange, by the respondents, who discounted them, the bills having been dishonoured at maturity by the acceptors, Messrs. George Knowles and Company, Limited, of London. The decision went against them both at the trial and on appeal, but the High Court granted their certificate for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The appellants are export merchants in Calcutta, and on August 9, 1923, they offered two drafts for discount to the respondents, who are bankers there. Two others for the same amounts were sent on September 6. The second transaction was a mere transaction of course, following on the first.3. The documents were put before Mr. Thompson, the respondent's manager, and on his approval of them the drafts were discounted. In addition to the two drafts, there were a bill of lading for twenty-five bales of gunnies to be delivered at Dundee and an invoice ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujrathi Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1227
Viscount Sumner, J.1. In this action forty-eight plaintiffs joined in suing the Secretary of State for India and the Collector and District Magistrate of Nasik for two kinds of relief, (a) a declaration that certain official notices and orders were ultra vires and invalid, and (b) an injunction permanently restraining all executive action thereunder. Unless the right to the first relief was made out, the prayer for the second necessarily failed. The suit was begun less than two months after notice of the intention to bring it had been given to the respondents. It was dismissed by the District Judge on all grounds, and by the High Court of Bombay as well, but, as to one of the learned Judges, not altogether on the same grounds. The plaintiffs now appeal.2. In April, 1921, serious disorder occurred at Malegaon, in the District of Nasik, Bombay, connected with the Khilafat agitation, and in the consequent unlawful assemblies and riots there was loss of life and much damage to property. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Soniram Jeetmull Vs. Tata and Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1027
Viscount Sumner, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the High Court of Rangoon, which affirmed a decision of the Court below, overruling an objection to the jurisdiction taken by the appellants. It was imposed upon the parties, as a term of the special leave, that the pleadings between the parties, the judgments and the order of the Court in India should be the sole material for this argument, The appellants were sued in Rangoon by R.D. Tata & Company, Limited, who have a business branch there, for payment of sums of money, due upon, the failure of constituents to satisfy debts due to Messrs. Tata, Sons & Company, which sums the defendants had undertaken to make good to them. Judgment had been obtained, and there was no dispute about the amount or validity of these debts or about their being due from the original debtors, but Messrs. Jeetmull, who carry on business in Calcutta, contend that they cannot be sued for this money in Rangoon. The transactions between these parties w...
Tag this Judgment!indar Prasad Vs. Jagmohan Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1154
Blanesburgh, J.1. This appeal arises out of a partition suit which has been pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow for a period of nearly twelve years. The plaintiffs and defendants are, in each case, father and son, all members of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law and at one time joint, The first plaintiff is the elder brother of the first defendant. The sons, being both of them infants during the greater part of the critical period, do not, except for one incident concerning the second plaintiff, enter into the story. It will be convenient, therefore, frequently throughout this judgment to refer to the respective fathers as if they represented the entire interest on either side. When their Lordships refer to them as plaintiff or defendant they will do so in this sense.2. The family owned property, both moveable and immoveable, of considerable extent and value, including a banking and pawnbroking business. Some time in 1914 the first plain...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Vs. Dhanji Jadhavji Bhatia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1389
Viscount Sumner, J.1. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit, claimed against the legal representatives of the partners in a firm now dissolved, who are the present appellant?, to recover damages for breach of a contract to gin for him in their ginning factory raw cotton, which he contemplated buying and, when ginned, pressed and made up into bales, proposed to sell on the market in Bombay or elsewhere.2. At the trial the Second Additional District Judge of Akola decided that the alleged contract was not proved and he dismissed the suit. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for the Central Provinces. Before the appeal came on to be heard, the Judge was removed from his office for judicial misconduct, not however connected with this case. Accordingly, in the language used by the members of the Judicial Commissioner's Court,In the lower Court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In this Court it was agreed that no reference should be made t...
Tag this Judgment!Saleh Mahomed Umer Dossal Vs. Nathoomal Kessamal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1150
Viscount Sumner, J.1. In this case as the respondent did not appear, their Lordships with the very full assistance of counsel for the appellants have examined it with, as they believe, every care to see whether there is any irregularity, or other matter than that which has been fully argued, to which their attention ought to be directed, but they are satisfied that the only question which can reasonably be raised is whether the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, from which the appeal comes, were or were not right in their decision that the award made in the arbitration between the present parties was bad on its face. Though it was no part of the proceeding now before the Board, it is the case that after the issue was decided, that is now under appeal, the present appellants applied to have it reviewed, and on that occasion one of the members of the Court, whose judgment is under appeal, said, in refusing the application:-It may be admitted for the present purposes, that our decision p...
Tag this Judgment!Sasti Kinkar Banerjee Vs. Hursookdas Chogemull
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1179
Viscount Haldane, J.1. In this case the only real question is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make the order that was made at Calcutta, adjudicating the appellant insolvent. The history of the case is that on August 6, 1924, the appellant was adjudicated insolvent by the Court of the District Judge of Birbhum. Then on September 15, the respondent firm filed a petition in the High Court of Calcutta on the Original Side in Insolvency Jurisdiction, making a claim to money, and that was supported by an affidavit. Some controversy was at first raised by the appellant on this matter, and it was alleged that the High Court had no jurisdiction. On March 17, 1925, the High Court in its Insolvency Jurisdiction treated itself as having jurisdiction and made an order adjudicating the appellant insolvent. Then there was an appeal to the High Court and the High Court agreed with the learned Judge, who decided for insolvency, and held that he was acting under his jurisdiction in accepting,...
Tag this Judgment!Protap Chandra Deo Vs. Jagadish Chandra Deo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1136
Warrington, J.1. The subject-matter of the present appeal is a family estate known as the Dhalbhum Raj, situate in the districts of Singhbum and Midnapur, in the province of Bengal.2. The family is a joint and undivided one, governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The estate is ancestral, and succession to it is governed by a family custom according to the rule of lineal primogeniture. The Raj is impartible. The last holder of the estate prior to the present dispute was Raja Satrughna, who, in 1887, succeeded to it on the death of Raja Ram Chandra III.3. On May 11, 1905, Raja Satrughna made a will, whereby he appointed the respondent executor, and bequeathed the estate to him and declared him to be the next Raja. Probate of the will has been duly granted to the respondent. It is admitted that, if the will had not been made or is inoperative, the appellant, according to the rule of lineal primogeniture, is the next heir, and as such is entitled to succeed to the estate.4. The ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›