Mumbai Court February 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.
A.E.G. India Electric Company, Ltd. Vs. General Electric Trading Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR426
Kemp, J.1. His Lordship, after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded] The relief under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act is one within the discretion of the Court and it lies on the plaintiffs to show why the matter should not be referred to arbitration.2. Mr. Taraporewala for the plaintiffs contends that there are no disputes which can be the subject-matter of a submission and that the suit is for the price. The answer to this is that the defendants, it may be perhaps not so early as they might have done, objected to the accounts submitted to the plaintiffs and alleged amongst other things that the plaintiffs had sold goods direct to other agents than themselves in contravention of the terms of the contract. I do not propose to discuss all the matters of which the defendants complain, but I am quite satisfied that in October, 1928, they did raise a dispute and, so far as I know, a genuine dispute, that the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was incorrect.3. Mr. Taraporewal...
U. Po Naing Vs. the Burma Oil Company Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR750
Hailsham L.C., J.1. This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal in Burma which reversed a decision of the Court of first instance in favour of the present appellant, who is the plaintiff in the action.2. The action is brought to recover compensation for the use by the respondents of a quantity of gas which had been taken by the respondents from a certain oil well site of which they were in possession under a lease granted by the appellant. It appears that in Upper Burma, under the Upper Burma Land and Revenue Regulation of 1889, the right of private ownership in land is recognised, but it is expressly provided in Section 31 that the right to all minerals, coal and earth oil, shall be deemed to belong to the Government, and the Government shall have all powers necessary for the proper enjoyment of its right thereto.3. The facts proved are, that the appellant was before the year 1912 in possession of oil well sites in Upper Burma. By a grant dated April 25, 1912, after reciting the fact t...
Hormasji Shapurji Mistry Vs. Dhanbai Barjorji Cooper
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR511
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by one Bai Navajbai, the widow of Sorabji Hormusji Engineer, asking to be added as a party to this suit, which is now under appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rangnekar on an originating summons. The learned Judge held that there was an intestacy under the will or part of the will of Edulji Shapurji Mistri, and the applicant claims that on that finding she, under certain other wills, takes a portion of the estate as on an intestacy, Consequently, she contends that she is interested in upholding the judgment of the learned Judge.2. We are told that in the Court below there was nobody to represent the next-of-kin or those interested in arguing for an intestacy, and that the trustees of the will of the deceased Edulji represented their position. The proper procedure is that trustees should not argue on behalf of beneficiaries or nest-of-kin apart from exceptional cases, e. g,, if a class of unborn children are interested. Therefore,...
Emperor Vs. Rameshwar Ramnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR529
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, who reversed the conviction and sentence passed on the accused Nos. 1 to 12 by the First Class Magistrate, Jalgaon, and acquitted them. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the accused that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal on an application in revision.2. The complainant in this case is not the Local Government, but a private individual, The complaint was for defamation under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. Diwan Bahadur Rao, on behalf of the applicant-complainant, has urged that as the complaint relates to a private and personal matter concerning the applicant, the Local Government would not interfere with the order of acquittal by instituting an appeal under the provisions of Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has also urged that the past practice of this Court not to interfere in such matters has not been of such a uni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›