Mumbai Court September 1927 Judgments
Chintaman Raoji Naik Vs. Khanderao Pandurang Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom58; (1928)30BOMLR45
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a very simple case though it raises points of general importance. One Pandurang died in 1904 leaving a widow and two sons, plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2. His assets consisted in part of certain moneys coming under a provident fund and certain other moneys, Pandurang's widow and natural guardian of the children handed over the moneys to her brother Raoji for the benefit and education of the two boys. On the facts of this case as found in the lower Court it must be taken that Raoji applied part of this trust moneys for that purpose, but put the balance amounting to Rs. 1,600 and upwards into his own pocket. He died in 1918, His representatives are called on to refund this balance and to account, and they set up limitation. In other words an apparently fraudulent trustee who has put trust money into his own pocket is thus to escape by reason of lapse of time.2. It is clear, however, that Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 prevents a sui...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Purshottam Vs. Chimanlal Amritlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom49; (1928)30BOMLR92
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an extraordinary case, and one to which, in the view I take, the learned trial Judge has not given the care which it deserves. The suit is one to have an award in an arbitration out of Court filed and a decree passed thereon. A startling circumstance in the case is that whereas the agreement for reference (Exhibit 28) was on September 11, 1920, the award was not made till after five years afterwards, viz,, on October 6, 1925. Nor is there any reasonable excuse for that delay put forward. On the facts it would appear that the arbitrator had two meetings of the parties in 1920 within the first two months or so of the reference, but that thereafter nothing whatever was done except that part of the property included in the reference was divided up by agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding this long lapse of time the arbitrator never called the parties again before making his award; and he kept no notes of the evidence in 1920 except some memoran...
Tag this Judgment!Huchangouda Rudragouda Vs. Kallava Kallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom166; (1928)30BOMLR38
Crump, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit seek to recover possession of certain proportion which are patilki inam lands assigned for the remuneration of the office of Patil in the village of Kotbagi. It is common ground that there are two families holding these patilki inam lands, and that they hold them half and half. The plaintiffs are the sisters of one Kallangouda who succeeded to a half share of the property in that family some thirty years ago, Kallangouda died in 1885 leaving a widow Yellava, and Yellava hold the property, having the ordinary Hindu widow's interest therein, till the date of her death in 1917, and upon that event the succession opened to the deceased Kallangouda. The two plaintiffs are the sisters of Kallangouda, and it is not disputed that tinder (he Hindu law they would be entitled to succeed. But, the property being watan property, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 2 of Bom. Act V of 1886 which lays down a special rule of succession in such c...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Laxman Joshi Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom61; (1928)30BOMLR49; 108Ind.Cas.19
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out facts, and holding that the defendants had waived the objection on the ground of lateness of acceptance, continued :] The contract between the parties, therefore, being complete, the question that arises is whether the defendants can escape from their liability for payment of rent and for making repairs under the lease by reason of the alleged fact that there was a strike of local workmen which rendered it impossible to manufacture salt. It is urged on behalf of the defendants that the purpose of the contract was the manufacture of salt, and the purpose having failed, no liability under the contract to pay rent or to make repairs arose, and that under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act the contract became impossible and therefore became void on account of the subsequent impossibility of manufacturing salt on account of the strike of the workmen, and reliance is placed on the cases of Goculdas Madhavji v. Narsu Yenkuji I.L.R. (1889) 13 Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Omar Tyab Aba Shariff Vs. Ismail Tyab Aba Shariff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom69; (1928)30BOMLR177; 108Ind.Cas.495
Rangnekar, J.1. On February 17, 1927, Mr. Justice Kemp appointed Mr. Moos, receiver of the estate of the minor plaintiffs in this suit. As one of the prayers of the notice of motion was for interim maintenance of the minors the learned Judge appointed the Administrator General as guardian of the property of the minors and directed the receiver to pay to him a monthly sum of Rs. 600 for their maintenance. The order, however, contained no directions as to whom the maintenance allowance was to be paid. As Mr. Justice Kemp sat in the Sessions and thereafter went on leave, the matter could not be mentioned to him, and was ultimately brought before me. It was agreed between all the parties that the Administrator General should be directed to pay the maintenance allowance to defendant No. 2, and, as I was about to make the order, the Administrator General, who appeared in person, requested me to substitute the expression 'Official Trustee' in place of the original expression 'Administrator Ge...
Tag this Judgment!Alimahomed Akbarally Vs. ShamsuddIn Dadamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom145; (1928)30BOMLR131
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The defendant No. 1 raised a plea of jurisdiction on the ground that he was an agriculturist, within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and on July 7, 1925, by consent Kajiji J. ordered that a preliminary issue as to whether the first defendant Shamsuddin Dadamiya was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act at the time of the accrual of the cause of action or at the date of the filing of the suit should be referred to the Commissioner. The Commissioner ordered defendant No. 1 to file his accounts and gave him time for the purpose. Time was taken and ultimately accounts were filed. But defendant No. 1 also desired to lead evidence that he was an agriculturist by reason of his being personally engaged in agricultural labour under g. 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The solicitors for the plaintiffs objected to this evidence bu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›