Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR687
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The appellant Pillani was a partner of a firm of Hussein-bhai Pillani Wadia & Co. On April 3, 1923, that firm along with Wadia Woollen Mills, Limited, granted in respect of a loan a promissory note for two lacs of rupees with interest Article 7 3/4 per cent, in favour of the respondent Raja Bahadur Bansilal Motilal. On September 12, 1923, the firm dissolved partnership and the appellant retired. The firm continued to do business under the same name and by the deed of dissolution a certain interest in the business was secured to the appellant though he was no longer a partner.2. On April 3, 1924, the old promissory note was cancelled and a new promissory note given by the company and the firm for the same sum of two lacs, interest on this note running at 8 per cent. It is admitted that the retirement of the appellant from the firm was advertised in the Bombay Gazette and in four other newspapers, and it was found by the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR621
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to compromise this First Appeal No. 454 of 1926. All the parties to the original suit are, however, not before us. The parties to the appeal consist of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendants Nos. 2 and 11-16. Consequently we have not before us defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 10 and 17 to 20. We are, however, informed that owing to the course this litigation has taken, these latter defendants are not necessary for the purposes of the present appeal and the proposed compromise.2. What we are asked to do is to sanction the compromise on behalf of the minors, viz., plaintiff No. 2 and defendants Nos. 14, 15 and 16, Their respective interests are in conflict, The litigation concerns the family property descending from one Murardas Rasikdas, who had four sons. The plaintiff's' contention was that there was never any partition between these four sons of Murardas, In that contention, however, they were defeated in the Court below. They have now ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR762
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Lahore who reversed two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi in a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, claiming an account of monies entrusted to the defendant as agent, and payment of the amount found due. The plaintiff at the time of the transactions in question was the Rais or Chief of the State of Sheopur-Baroda. In August, 1918, he entrusted the defendant as his agent with the sum of Rs. 5,000, and in January, 1919, with the sum of Rs. 12,250 to be applied for the purposes of the plaintiff. The receipt of these sums is admitted. It has been found that the defendant has not accounted for the greater part of the sums so received. The defendant, however, has relied on a plea that the money he received was State money; and that the plaintiff had no right to sue, because in January, 1919, he was deposed from his position as Rais or Chief by the authorities of the State of Gwalior. What the precise rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR581
Mirza, J.1. This was a test case brought against the applicant at the instance of the Bombay Municipality for an offence under Section 412A (6) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1888), The Chief Presidency Magistrate, before whom the applicant was tried, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10. From the conviction and sentence the applicant has come before us in revision.2. Section 412A (6) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, was inserted by Bombay Act VI of 1913. As since modified it reads as follows :-412 A. No person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a license granted by the Commissioner in this behalf...[b) use any place in the City for the sale of milk, butter or other milk products.The words 'butter or other milk products', appearing after the word 'milk' in Clause (b) of this section, were inserted by Bombay Act VI of 1916, Section 8. It is admitted by the applicant that he uses a place in the Bombay city for the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR602
Mirza, J.1. The applicant is the editor of a Marathi daily called the Nava Kal which has a circulation of about ten to twelve thousand copies per day amongst the Marathi speaking public. He is being tried before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for an offence under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an article which appeared in the issue of the Nava Kal of February 9, 1929.2. The offence is triable, as would appear from Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, either by a Court of Session or by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The punishment which may be imposed on conviction is transportation for life or for any term and fine, or imprisonment of either description for three years and fine, or fine. The applicant was arrested on February 14, 1929, on process issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. On February 15, 1929, this Court on an application made in that behalf released the applicant on his furnishing bail. On February 16, 1929, when the trial comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR809
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by Amjad Khan, son of Salar Khan, who was the original plaintiff in the suit, against two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, dated December 15, 1924.2. The suit was brought by Salar Khan to recover possession of certain properties specified in the plaint, and mesne profits.3. The title of Amjad Khan, hereinafter called the plaintiff, to two specific plots purchased by Musammat Waziran has been declared by both the Courts in India, and no question with regard to these plots arises in this appeal.4. The dispute relates to proprietary shares in eleven villages.5. The shares belonged to one Qulara Murtaza Khan.6. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that Ghulam Murtaza Khan made a gift of the said shares to his wife, Musammat Waziran, by a registered deed dated January 17, 1905, and put her in possession of the property, which was the subject of the gift; that Ghulam Murtaza Khan died on February 6, 1906, and his wife ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 122Ind.Cas.132
Kemp, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs for an injunction against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from dealing with their interest in the joint family properties for receiving the sale-proceeds of the Picket Road property. There was a partition Suit No. 2773 of 1927 In which defendant No. 2 in this suit sued defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in this suit and also the mortgagee. In that suit the present defendant No. 1 was described as a minor On the ground that a guardian of his property had been appointed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. That, it was considered, extended the period of minorily to twenty-one years. The present plaintiffs who claim to be creditors of the estate were ordered to be given notice during the trial of that partition suit and whilst it was before the Commissioner to take the accounts so that they might have an opportunity to safeguard their interests before the Commissioner. They attended and cannot now deny having notice of everything...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR565
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship dealt with the case of accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 22 and came to the conclusion that their conviction was correct and should be upheld. The judgment then proceeded:] The convictions of accused Nos. 9 and 10 are mainly based upon their retracted confessions. It has been contended by Mr. Thakor before us that the confession of accused Nos. 9 and 10 were not recorded by the Magistrate in accordance with the requirements of Sections 164 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and of the High Court Criminal Circulars in that behalf, and are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. In both these confessions the Magistrate has recorded the necessary certificate at the end to the effect that they were voluntarily made; but he has not recorded the questions he put and the answers given, the perusal of which would satisfy the Court that the confessions were voluntarily made, and there was no inducement held out by the police by which the confessions could be said to be prompte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR753
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon, in a case in which they have altered the finding of the Judge of the High Court of the Original Side in a land acquisition case.2. The Government on May 31, 1922, had published a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that the appellants' land was required for a public purpose, and that declaration included, besides the land which they desired to take from the appellants, certain land belonging to other people, The Government seemingly changed their mind about requiring the land of the other people, and accordingly on October 6, 1923, they published another declaration under Section 6, specifying the same land belonging to them, but, at the same time, announcing that the former declaration was cancelled.3. The matter went before the Collector and he gave a certain award, to which their Lordships need make no further allusion. An appeal was taken to a Judge of the High Court an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR1002
Madgavkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out facts and issues, proceeded.] The first two issues raise somewhat important questions of law, and it will be convenient to dispose of them at the outset.2. On the question of jurisdiction reliance is placed for defendants Nos. 3a and 3b on the decision of Pratt J. in Pranlal v. Goculdas (1825) 27 Bom. L.R. 570 in which he has held that the High Court of Bombay has no original jurisdiction to grant a declaration as to which out of two or more competing mortgagees is a prior mortgagee, when the property is situated, as here, outside Bombay. For the plaintiffs it is pointed out that in a suit by a puisne mortgagee, a prior mortgagee of property outside the jurisdiction was added as a party by Strachey J. in Sorabji v. Rattonj I.L.R.(1898) 22 Bom. 701 and the decision of Pratt J. above was referred to with disapproval by Marten C.J. in the course of the Full Bench decision in Hatim-bhai v. Framroz Binshaw(1926-27) 29 Bom. L.R. 498.3. It is, ...
Tag this Judgment!