Mumbai Court October 1929 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.
Musammat Fatma Bibi Vs. Saadat Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR485
Buckmaster, J.1. The question on this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to specific performance of a contract dated October 25, 1920, for the sale to them by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of certain property in Mauza Sanwalpur Newada Pargana Saharanpur. Respondent No. 1 is a purchaser from the other respondents under an alleged contract of October 22, 1920. He undoubtedly obtained a conveyance of the property on October 28, 1920, and was entered on the Register, but the appellants say this contract was not made on October 22, and that he obtained registration with full knowledge of the appellants' rights. This claim was supported by the Subordinate Judge, but rejected by the High Court.2. An examination of the facts has satisfied their Lordships that the judgment of the High Court is correct. At the material dates the vendors were subject to a decree for the sale of the property, and a compromise decree had been passed directing them to lodge in Court Rs. 17,182-10-0 on or befor...
Dal Bahadur Singh Vs. Bijai Bahadur Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR487
Buckmaster, J.1. Their Lordships do not desire to hear the appellants further, for, in their opinion, this appeal must succeed. It is brought against two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated December 23, 1926, both of which involve the only point that is now open for consideration, namely, whether or not power was conferred upon Musammat Sultan Kunwar by her husband Ajit Singh., to make an adoption to him.2. The facts of the case are these : Ajit Singh died in 1860, leaving Musammat Sultan Kunwar his widow. It is stated that he had anxiously hoped for heirs, but that hope had been disappointed, and his widow was left without any son or daughter to comfort her. She continued in her loneliness until 1914, and on October 6 of that year she purported to adopt to her husband one Amar Bahadur Singh. It is that adoption that is in dispute. So far as the documents and ceremonies are concerned it is not now impeached, the challenge is against the power to adopt and not th...
Mir Safdar Ali Vs. Mirza Maksudali Beg.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR484
Buckmaster, J.1. It is to be regretted that the ingenuity of counsel persuaded the Board to advise His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal in this case ; for, in fact, when the matter comes to be examined, there is no fit subject matter for the consideration of this Board at all.2. The question arises in proceedings taken to recover possession of land, and the whole point which is now before their Lordships for determination is whether the plaintiff was disentitled to maintain his suit because ho claimed through a female as one of the lineal heirs of the Inamdar, Mir Akbar Ali, who was entitled to the Inam grant of the lands in dispute. That these lands were Inam lands, that Mir Akram Ali held them as the Inamdar, and that they had descended from him, is beyond question. The real point is whether or not the Rules that were laid down by the Government for the regulation of these Inam grants entitled female representatives to claim equally with the males. The Rules that are relevant...
Ma Yait Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR125
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon in a suit which was brought originally by one Ebrahim Moolla, who was the assignee of one Maung Chit Maung. The plaintiff claimed to have a declaration of the interests of the assignor under a settlement made by the assignor's father in the year 1908. The defendants, who are the present appellants, are the trustees of the settlement, and the defence to the suit was an allegation that the assignment was invalid by reason of its being in breach of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act (Act IV of 1882), which applies to the dispositions of this particular settlor. The clauses relied on are Clause (a) of Section 6, which says : 'The chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the. chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman, or any other mere possibility of a like nature, cannot be transferred'; and Clause (e), which says that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred.2. The questio...
The National Bank of Upper India, Limited Vs. Bansidhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR136
George Lowndes, J.1. On December 22, 1917, the first respondent executed in favour of the National Bank, of Upper India, Limited, a promissory note payable on demand for Rs. 20,000, and interest, together with a formal receipt for the money. The bank is now in liquidation and the liquidators, suing in the name of the bank, claim from him the money due under the note. The second respondent, his brother, has been joined with him as a defendant to the suit, but no relief is sought as against him before this Board, and there seems to be no reason why he should have been made a party to this appeal. The suit was dismissed by both Courts in India, and the liquidators have appealed to his Majesty in Council.2. The appellant bank asserted in their plaint that the Rs. 20,000 was advanced to the first respondent, and that he and his brother * made various repayments in respect of principal and interest upon which reliance was placed to save limitation, the suit having been instituted more than t...
Sri Rajah Nallaparaju Mirja Atchutharamaraju Garu Vs. Kruttiventi Pebr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR481
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. The suit in this case was a suit as regards a mortgage, and the real point at issue between the parties was whether one rate of interest was to be allowed or another. The suit was tiled before the Government Agent at Godavari. He had power to transfer the case, and he did transfer it to the Assistant Commissioner, Agency Division, Vizagapatam, and he was in favour of the plaintiff. Under the Agency Rules-which in this part of India prevail, to the exclusion of the general Code of Civil Procedure, with certain exceptions which it is immaterial to mention-there was an appeal to the Agency Commissioner, and he decided against the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff then applied to the High. Court. His right to apply depended upon Rule 13. Rule 13 of the Rules in question was this: ' All decrees passed by the Agency Commissioner on appeals from decree of his subordinates'-and this particular decree was such a one-'shall be final, the High Court having the power on special gro...
Gandabhai Gulabchand Vs. Balkrishna Vaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom217; (1930)32BOMLR294
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the payment of Rs. 7,125 made on July 15, 1923, to the appellant Gandabhai by Chhotalal, adjudged insolvent on a petition of October 1923 within three months of the payment, was a payment made by Chhotalal with a view to give to Gandabhai a preference over other creditors, and therefore to be deemed fraudulent and void as against the receiver respondent under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, as the trial Court held.2. The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment appealed against. Chhotalal was a timber merchant living at Bulsar with dealings also at Dahanu and Savta and a contract to supply sleepers to the Bhavnagar State Railway. He became involved about 1922. Nine or ten creditors had obtained decrees against him. Some darkhasts were also pending. He asked one Rao Saheb Narottam to obtain the consent of the creditors at least outside Bulsar to compound on a payment of eight annas in the rupee. Rao Saheb Narottam ...
The Bhagirath Spinning and Weaving and C. Co. Ltd. Vs. Balaji Bhavani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom267; (1930)32BOMLR87
Madgavkar, J.1. These applications raise an important question as to the right of a company to revoke a resolution of forfeiture and to call for the amount due on the shares.2. The plaintiff petitioner in all the applications is the Bhagirath Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited, Jalgaon, East Khandesh. The defendants-opponents are various persons, who applied for shares and to whom shares wore allotted. In one ease a defence of misrepresentation was set up resting on the alleged failure of the company to supply the defendants with a prospectus after application and allotment. That ground has been negatived in the trial Court and need not, therefore, be considered.3. The facts common to all the applications areas follows: In April 1925, the defendants-opponents applied for shares along with the application money and were allotted these shares. In August and November 1925 and in March 1926, the directors passed three resolutions for calls. Calls were issued accordingly an...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Mansey Lakhamsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR285
Norman Kemp, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The suit is for Rs. 1295 being the amount of 185 consolidated claims for shortage in respect of goods consigned from no less than forty-six stations on the East Indian Railway and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway to Bombay. The plaintiffs might have filed the suit in the Presidency Small Causes Court under its extended, jurisdiction but have preferred to bring it in the High Court. The plaintiffs base their claim for shortage on each consignment on the difference between the average weight per bag according to the system of measurement adopted by the railway company and the weight of that bag when taken delivery of from the company by the consignee in Bombay. To that I will refer later. The railway company contend that the weight inserted in the railway receipt when the bags are accepted by the company is only for the purpose of ascertaining what the railway company should charge for freight.2. Out of the fourteen issues raised before the trial Judge i...
Silvester Vaz Vs. Louis Dias
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR103
Patkar, J.1. In this case the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, has submitted under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the opinion of this Court a question of law arising in a ease pending before him. The question submitted by him In as follows :-Do abusive words (granting that they are insulting) conveyed in a letter seat by post constitute an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code so as to make the -writer of that letter liable for the intentional insult and thereby giving provocation to the receiver of that letter, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.2. It is conceded on both sides that the letter in the present case was not sent by post but was sent by a messenger. Under Section 504 the ingredients of the offence are (1) intentional insult, (2) provocation to any person, and (3) an intention or knowledge that such provocation will cause the person insulted to break...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »