Mumbai Court July 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.
In Re: Ebrahim Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom516; (1930)32BOMLR1076
Blackwell, J.1. This was a summons taken out by the applicants Messrs. Dorab and Company, asking for a declaration that they have a Hen for their costs on the amount of costs awarded to one Ebrahim Ahmed, a debtor, as against the petitioning; creditors payable under a certain order dated June 19,1928, made by the learned Commissioner in Insolvency and taxed at Rs. 413-8-8, and for a declaration that by reason of that lien the petitioning creditors were bound to pay that sum to the applicants above-named. The summons in question was adjourned by me into Court for argument.2. The facts relied on by the applicants are set out in an affidavit dated April 9, 1929, made by Dorab Rustomji Chothia, who is the sole proprietor of the applicants' firm. Shortly stated, the facts are that a petition was presented against the debtor by the petitioning creditors, and on June 5, 1928, the debtor engaged the applicants to act for him. On June 19, 1928, the petition was ordered by the learned Commission...
Ghelabhai Jinabhai Vs. Chhagan Narasi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom60; 122Ind.Cas.417
1. Defendants Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and are members of a joint Hindu family. Defendant No. 1 opened a khata in. his own name for goods supplied from June 28, 1923, to May 30, 1924. Another khata was opened in the plaintiff's books by defendant No. 2 which runs from June 3, 1924, to May 22,. 1925 A third khata was opened in the names of defendants Nos. 2 and 4. and the items in that khata run from May 29, 1925, to October 20, 1925. The plaintiff filed his suit on the first khata in the name of Chhagan, the father, claiming a certain sum of money as the balance due at the foot of that khata. That suit was No. 800 of 1927. In the course of the hearing it transpired on the production of a 'sama-daekat' book that certain credits, which should have been credited to that khata, were credited to the khata in the name of defendant No. 2, whereupon the learned Judge decided that the plaintiff cannot sue in respect of the khata in the 1st defendant's name, and that ther...
Radhoba Baloba Vagh Vs. Aburao Bhagwantrao Shirole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1030
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, dated February 17, 1925, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Poona, dated January 22, 1923.2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration that the immovable and movable properties mentioned in the plaint were the ancestral properties of the joint family of plaintiff No. 3, Nana Ramrao, and the defendants, and that the plaintiff Nana had a Sanderson one-ninth share in the said properties, for partition and other consequential reliefs.3. It appears that by a deed, dated June 6, 1910, Nana sold his one-ninth share in certain of the properties mentioned in the plaint for Rs. 1,500 to the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2.4. The father of these plaintiffs died, and it was alleged that after his death, namely, on or about August 18, 1919, Nana obtained a further sum of Rs. 500 from plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had thus bec...
Shankar Vasudeo Thite Vs. Dattatraya Vishnu Sardeshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1123; 122Ind.Cas.428
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover from defendants possession of the plaint property with mesne profits and costs of suit. The properties involved in the suit are (a) one house No. 1469; (b) Shirdhon lands, four in number; and (c) Gurasla lands, five in number.2. The only point argued in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2. In December 1915 Narayan the maternal grandfather of the present plaintiff filed a complaint with regard to the theft of some ornaments. Narayan died on March 31, 1916, and on November 9, 1916 the Magistrate passed an order requiring the person entitled to the property to establish his claim in a civil Court before November 21, 1916. On November 13, 1916, the present plaintiff brought a suit against the present defendants to establish his right with regard to four ornaments which were alleged to have been stolen and which formed the subject-matter of the order of the Magistrate. The plaintiff succeeded, It is...
Bai Mani Vs. Bhailal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1120
Madgavkar, J.1. These are proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act in respect of two minor girls Shanta and Girja. The respondents-petitioners cousins applied to be appointed guardians of the persons of these girls and of their brother Sevaklal on the ground that the minors' mother Bai Mani had been leading an immoral life after her husband's death. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that there was danger of Bai Mani's marrying the two minor girls unsuitably. Bai Mani undertook in Court not to marry the minor girls without the Court's permission and was allowed to retain their custody. She broke the undertaking and married them to opponents Nos. 2 and 3, Proceedings in contempt were taken against Bai Mani and the sons-in-law, and the District Judge directed Bai Mani to undergo imprisonment in the civil jail for two months and each of the sons-in-law to undergo imprisonment for one month.2. All three appealed. The appeal of Bai Mani was not ...
Krishnaji Annajee Bulte Vs. Annajee Dhondajee Bulte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom61; (1929)31BOMLR1240
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the property kept in possession of his father defendant No. 1 for the enjoyment of defendants Nos. 1 and 5 is liable to be equally divided among the plaintiff and his brothers defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and that the sale deeds and deeds of gift passed un authorizedly by defendant No. 1 are null and void. The case on behalf of the defendants was that there was a partition in 1910 and the property was divided into five equal shares and each sharer was absolute owner of the property that fell to his share, It appears that in 1910 there was a partition between the brothers and their father defendant No. 1. The present plaintiff made an application in 1910 for a decree to be passed in terms of an award Exhibit 83 After the presentation of the award the plaintiff contended that there was an agreement in writing to be passed by defendant No. 1 to the effect that the plaint property had fallen to the share of defendan...
Shivram Pandurang Prabhu Desai Vs. Ramkrishna Shivram Palsule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom58; (1929)31BOMLR1246
Madgavkar, J.1. On October 7, 1912, one Pandurang made a will, Exhibit 18, during his last illness in which he announced his intention of adopting the defendant-appellant and directed him to redeem the lands of the plaintiff-respondent and his mother Krishnabai, the daughter of Chewubai the sister of the testator. Chewubai, Krishnabai and the plaintiff-respondent had apparently all been living with the testator. The appellant was at the time absent in Benarea but returned soon afterwards. On October' 16, nine days after the will, he was formally adopted by the testator. The testator died a few days later.2. In 1924 the respondent filed the present suit to compel the appellant to carry out the directions in the will and to redeem the mortgaged property belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellant resisted the claim on three grounds: firstly, that the will was in respect of ancestral property and the testator had no power to make it; secondly, the directions therein wer...
B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. the Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ld.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom45; (1929)31BOMLR1297; 122Ind.Cas.849
Norman Kemp. Kt., A.C.J.1. This is a civil revisional application by the applicants, who were the defendants in a suit by the plaintiffs against them and three other railway companies, in respect of a consignment of seventy bales of cloth consigned on August 28, 1926, from Asarwa in the Ahmedabad District for transit to Sealdah on the Eastern Bengal Railway. The station at which the goods were consigned is on the applicants' railway. It is alleged that out of the consignment some twelve bales were found, on the arrival of the consignment at Sealdah on September 15, 1926, damaged by rain water. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed Rs. 916-9 damages and notice charges.2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit against the other three railway companies and decreed the amount of the claim against the present applicants.3. The consignment was despatched under the terms of a risk-note in form B, i. e., at owner's risk. The terms of this risk-note are material, and the learned Judge has deci...
In Re: Khairunnissa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR931
Patkar, J.1. In this case the complainant filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance against her husband. The learned Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the stay of the respondent of about eight days in Bombay with the applicant could not be said to constitute 'residence' within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his view he relied on the case of Bamdei v. Jhunni Lal (1926) 27 Cr. L.J. 820 where it was held that the words 'last resided' in Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not contemplate a mere casual residence in a place for a temporary purpose, and that where the husband is employed as a carpenter in the Railway workshops in Lahore and has been residing there continuously for eleven years, a temporary sojourn to Lucknow by him with his wife would not confer on Lucknow Court jurisdiction to entertain an applic...
Chimawa Rachaya Vs. Gangawa Gangadharaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1118; 122Ind.Cas.423
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a suit of 1918. The issues are not yet framed. The plaintiff sued for possession of certain survey numbers on the ground that she was the nearest heir of her father, the last male holder. The twenty-one defendants raised various defences. Among these defences were that there had been a partition, that many of the lands had fallen in partition to a person other than the father, and that the plaintiff was born before the father was adopted into the family to whom the lands belonged, However that might be, after all the defendants had filed their written statements by June 2, 1921, the First Class Subordinate Judge ordered the plaintiff to put in what he called a counter-written statement on June 17, which was not so put in. Her pleader was given four adjournments to put it in and it was still not put in. The lower Court pointed out the fact that the suit was more than three years old, having been filed on June 26, 1918, and on the ground that 'the plaintiff had sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »