Mumbai Court December 1928 Judgments
Lokappa Chamirappa Chatani Vs. Hiramani Khushaldas Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR471; 118Ind.Cas.799
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. There are two points here. The first is, whether the learned Judge was entitled to alter the amount for the pleader's fees stated in the plaint in favour of the defendants without giving notice to the plaintiff. What happened was that the suit was dismissed for want of appearance by the plaintiff', and at a later date the defendants applied ex parte to alter the amount of the pleader's fee, and that application was granted. We think, however, the learned Judge was bound to give notice to the plaintiff before any such amendment or alteration in the plaint was made. Consequently, there must be a remand to the lower Court, and on that remand the learned Judge will decide whether the original valuation for the pleader's fee on the plaint can stand, notwithstanding that for certain other purposes, the suit was valued at a much higher figure.2. For present purposes I will call the 6gure| the learned Judge will eventually arrive at on remand as Rs. X Then comes an...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Shivji Vs. Vasanji Shivji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR995
Rangnekar, J.1. This summons raises the question as to whether an order made under Order XXI, Rule 50, Sub-clauses (2) and (3), of the Civil Procedure Code, granting leave to the decree-holder to execute the decree against a person other than such a person as is referred to in Sub-rule (1), Clauses (6) and (c), as being a partner, is a decree within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-clause (2), of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 33,628-11 against the 1928 defendant firm on July 27, 1927, The writ of summons was served on Sejpal, one of the partners in the defendant firm. Being desirous of executing the decree against the other partners including the applicant Doongersi Shivji, the plaintiff took out a chamber summons under Order XXI, Rule 50, Civil Procedure Code, and, on September 16, 1927, obtained an order granting leave to execute the decree against them. A copy of the chamber summons was sent by Registered post to Doongersi Shivji at his address in ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ganu Bhandirge Vs. Hari Ganu Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR436; 118Ind.Cas.255
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application for review of the order of dismissal under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, by Mr. Justice Crump, of Second Appeal 459 of 1927, on September 17, 1927, preferred by the petitioner, original defendant No. 4, Hari Ganu Bhandirge.2. The contest in the original suit was as regards the property of one Mukundji. The petitioner claimed to be the daughter's son and heir of Mukundji The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 opponents claimed to be the nearest reversioners. The plaintiffs succeeded in both the lower Courts. Bach party set up a different genealogy. The plaintiffs' genealogy was accepted in both the lower Courts and they succeeded. The defendants' appeal to this Court was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The present application purports to be made under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground stated in para, 7 of the petition that one Raghunath Moreshwar Kulkarni banded over about December 16, 1927, a third...
Tag this Judgment!Currimbhai Naboobhai Rangwalla Vs. N.H. Moos
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR468
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision and not an appeal, The suit originally came before Mr. Chitre. The defendant was not there and an ex parte decree was passed. Thereupon an application was made to the learned Judge to restore the case to the list for hearing and to set aside the ex parte decree on certain grounds set forth in the affidavit in support of that application. The learned Judge in the exercise of his discretion refused the application.2. In revision, it is said that the learned Judge thereby violated an established rule of law and practice by which any litigant is entitled to have an ex parte decree set aside, provided he comes to the Court at some later time on the date of hearing and makes an application. For that purpose two authorities were cited to us. One is Chhotalal v. Ambalal : AIR1925Bom423 where a party was late because of an accident to the train. An application was made to have the suit restored on board but the Judge exercised his ...
Tag this Judgment!Harilal Chimanlal Vs. Pehladrai and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR508
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a contest between an Ahmedabad commission agent as plaintiffs and their Delhi principal as defendants, and the point is, whether the plaintiff's had any power to sell the goods they purchased on behalf of the defendants, when the defendants failed to retire certain drafts in payment of the goods. I say commission agents because we accept the finding of the learned Judge that that was the true relationship between the parties at the outset of the transaction.2. On the other hand, we have it here that the agents bought these goods personally and paid for them, and that as between themselves and their own vendors they were acting, in effect, for an undisclosed principal, and were accordingly personally liable to them. We further think that on the facts of this case when the goods were forwarded to Delhi, they were merely sent, in effect, to the plaintiffs' own agents, viz., their bankers, and that the property did not pass to the defendants. What the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikaji Raghunath Varerkar and ors. Vs. Anant Laxman Khandalekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Bom320
Marten, C.J.1. In permitting the plaintiff to withdraw this suit with liberty to bring a fresh one, notwithstanding that the trial had been going on for several days, and the evidence concluded and the case fixed for final argument, I would hold that the learned Judge misdirected himself as to the principles which should have guided him in exercising his discretion. Para. 4 of his judgment sets out the principle which he thinks should be adopted. It is in effect that if a plaintiff finds at the trial that he may fail because his evidence is scanty, he should be given another chance of bringing another suit to supplement his scanty evidence. That principle is not the law of this land. If it were, it would doubtless lead to a great deal of perjury and to a vast increase of litigation and hardship on innocent litigants. That being so, it is open to us to revise the discretion which the learned Judge exercised.2. Doing that, it appears that the only ground on which the trial application wa...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Hassan Saheb Vs. Ramchandra Appaya Shanbhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR355; 117Ind.Cas.526
Murphy, J.1. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the application for execution is not in time because the immediately preceding one on which it depends to come within limitation was not made in accordance with law.2. The decree under execution was passed on January 7, 1922, and the first application for execution was presented on January 7, 1925, that is, exactly on the last day of the period within which it would be within limitation. The present 'darkhast' was filed on October 19, 1926, and it was contended that it was in time, because it had been made within time of the previous one.3. As against this, the other side has contended that the previous application for execution had not been made in accordance with law, on two grounds, one being that a copy of the decree and an inventory of the property had not been annexed to it: and the second that it had not been duly signed and verified by the decree-holder as required by Order XXI, Rule 11(2), of the Code, As t...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Krishna Ashtaputre Vs. Jagannath Ahamrao Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR433; 117Ind.Cas.527
Murphy, J.1. This is a revision application against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Satara, in the matter of the execution of a decree.2. The facts were, that the judgment-debtor's property was put up for sale, and was sold. After this had been done the judgment-debtor made an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Civil Procedure Code, and deposited Rs. 1,076, in Court; Rs. 1,005 equalling the amount realized at the auction sale, Rs. 58 representing the five per cent, of the purchase money, required to be paid to the purchaser, and Rs. 16 being poundage. The sum specified in the proclamation of sale had been Rs. 1,384.3. The question now before us is, whether this payment by the judgment-debtor was sufficient to comply with the provisions of Rule 89 of Order XXI. It appears that when these proceedings were taken in the Subordinate Judge's Court, the plaintiff had made an application stating that:-In the above mentioned matter the property has been sold by auction a...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Lakshman Deo Vs. Radhabai Vishnu Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR504
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a story about a buffalo. Many pages of judgment are before us. And even that does not exhaust the literature on the subject, because, prior to the two judgments before us, there were proceedings in the Mamlatdar's Court in which the buffalo is question was attached in execution of the Mamlatdar's decree. It appears, however, from a judgment in the case that the real dispute between the parties is not as to the buffalo, but arises over some faction dispute in connection with rival schools. Under those circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that the parties have succeeded in raising a large number of technical points, and that their ingenuity has resulted in the bringing of the present curious form of action for which no precise precedent has been cited to us. The buffalo is said to be worth Rs. 150. There is some reference as to the buffalo's milk and its calf, but the present judgment is confined to the buffalo.2. In so far as one can consider t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Ramanuj Das Mohant Vs. Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR715
Phillimore, J.1. In the district of Midnapur there is a Mutt or charitable endowment of ancient foundation, and this appeal concerns a dispute as to the title to the office and emoluments of the Mohunt of this Mutt.2. Nothing is known of its earlier history. There is a deed of gift in the year 1811 to one Lachhman being then Mohunt. And he on September 11, 1878, appointed Bharat Das, his disciple, to be his successor in the office. The document is in the form of a letter attested by various witnesses and addressed to the appointee, and the appointment is per verba de prcesenti; but the document is described as a will and was registered as such, and the appointment was only to operate upon the death of the appointor. In this document Lachhman describes himself as the Gaddinashin Mohunt of the well-known Akhra named Bara Asthal, wherein two known idols, Raghunathjiu and Gopinathjiu and other idols have been installed from the time of his predecessors and to which certain other asthals de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »