Mumbai Court September 1929 Judgments
Vasudev Sadashiv Joshi Vs. Bhiva Pandu Bhalshinge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom184; (1930)32BOMLR85
Madgavkar, J.1. The applicant filed a possessory suit in the Mamlatdar's Court at Vadgaon under Bom. Act II of 1906 on a rent note. The defendant obtained an adjournment, and subsequently filed a suit in the civil Court against the applicant, for a declaration that he was a permanent tenant. The Mamlatdar held, in view of the remarks in Moti Jagta v. Indurai (1927) 30 Bom. L.R. 98, that it was a suitable case for the exercise of his powers under Section 5(1) of the Act, and referred the matter to the civil Court, as he thought that the question would be more properly dealt with by that Court. There is no appearance for the opponent.3. It is argued by the applicant that the suit in the civil Court having been filed, not previously to the possessory suit but subsequently, Section 26 has no application, the ruling of this Court in Moti Jagta v. Indurai has not been properly understood, and the view taken by the Mamlatdar would, in effect, frustrate the object of the Act.4. The civil suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Philip Saldanha Vs. Anne Grace Saldanha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR17
Blackwell, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice N. W. Kemp, declaring that the plaintiff was the lawfully wedded wife of defendant No. 1, that the marriage of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2 was void and illegal, and ordering restitution of conjugal rights as between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.2. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The parties to the suit are all Roman Catholics, and the respondent (original plaintiff) and appellant No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) are of Goan domicile. On June 9, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent were betrothed at the Church of Dabul as appears from a certificate of betrothal, Exh. Section On the same day appellant No. 1 wrote a letter, Exh. No. 3, to the Vicar of the Church of Dabul, informing him that he had changed his mind and requesting him to stop the reading of the banns. The Parish priest in consequence did not read the banns, .On June 14, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent went through a civil...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmansa Babasa Chowdhary Vs. Lakshmansa Baloosa Powar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom150; (1930)32BOMLR56
Norman Kemp, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This suit was filed in the name of Lakshmansa Baloosa Powar, a firm, under the terms of Order XXX, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, against the defendants. Lakshmansa Baloosa Powar appears to be the minor son of Baloosa Anandsa Powar. The plaint was declared by one Narhar Ramkrishna Kulkarni, who, it transpires, is the munim of the plaintiff firm. An application was made subsequently for Baloosa Anandsa Powar himself to re-affirm the plaint on the ground that he and defendant No. 1 were the partners in the first plaintiff firm. I do not wish at this stage to enter into the question of a firm suing one of its partners.2. When the defendants applied under Order XXX, Rule 2, for the names of the partners in the plaintiff firm, Narhar Kamkrishna Kulkarni declared that they were the minor Lakshmansa and defendant No. 1. Assuming that the declaration is untrue and that the real partners are defendant No. 1 and Baloosa Anandsa Powar, all that it amounts to is ...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Philip Saldanha and ors. Vs. Anne Grace Saldanha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.776
Blackwell, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice N.W. Kemp, declaring that the plaintiff was the lawfully wedded wife of defendant No. 1, that the marriage of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2 was void and illegal, and ordering restitution of conjugal rights as between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.2. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The parties to the suit are all Roman Catholics, and the respondent (original plaintiff) and appellant No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) are of Goan domicile. On June 9, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent were betrothed at the Church of Dabul as appears from a certificate of betrothal, Ex. A. On the same day appellant No. 1 wrote a letter, Ex. 3, to the Vicar of the Church of Dabul, informing him that he had changed his mind and requesting him to stop the reading of the banns. The Parish priest in consequence did not read the banns. On June 14, 1828, appellant No, 1 and the respondent went through a civil ceremony of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinanath Damodar Kale Vs. Malvi, Mody, Ranchhoddas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom213; (1930)32BOMLR272
Norman Kemp, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sell to him certain immoveable property and. in the alternative, for return of his deposit. The learned trial Judge, Mr. Justice Fawcett, held that the plaintiff, the buyer, had committed breach of the contract, but, whilst treating the amount of deposit as a penalty under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, he came to the conclusion that the amount of deposit, Rs. 4,300, was not an unreasonable amount of compensation to be awarded to the vendor under that section. He saw no distinction between the case of a deposit or earnest money and the case of a penalty for breach of contract. From that decision the plaintiff prefers the present appeal and he asks us to say that the amount of deposit comes within Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act and that, under the circumstances of the case and having regard to the severe nature of the conditions of sale, the Court should deal equit...
Tag this Judgment!Manibai Hemraj Vs. Maganlal Vithaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom239; (1930)32BOMLR386
Murphy, J.1. In this matter one Maganlal Hemraj applied to be declared the guardian of his minor wife Bai Prabhavati and for the custody of her person. The application was opposed by the girl's mother and stepfather. The learned trial Judge was of opinion that the allegations of unfitness of the husband for the guardianship of his wife were not made out, and he made a declaration appointing him the guardian of her person, though he also made a special order directing that, for certain reasons, she should, in the first instance, be sent to live for six months at the Vanita Vishram in Bombay, from which place she was subsequently removed to the Seva Sadan in Poona. The appellant is the girl's mother, and the opponent is the girl's husband.2. It has been argued in the first instance before us that the order made by the learned Judge is one which was not proper for him to make under Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890. That section provides that-Nothing in this Chapter s...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnabai Vs. Vasudeo Sagarmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR48
Norman Kemp, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The facts of this case have been set out in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. The point of law in the appeal does not appear to have been decided in this Presidency, There are two questions for our decision: (1) whether on the partition between Vasudeo and his father Sagarmal, Jamnabai, the widow of Sagarmal's adoptive father Mahadeo, is entitled to a share and (2) whether the sum of Rs. 20,000 allotted to Bai Chandabai under the consent decree in suit No. 43 of 1912 reverted after her death to the joint family estate or became the separate property of Sagarmal and Motilal and the two sons of Haribax. We are only concerned with the latter question so far as Sagarmal is concerned. The genealogical tree of the family is at page 8 of the paper-book.2. Now, Mahadeo died in 1919 before Vasudeo was born. The latter is now about six years old and Sagarmal, therefore, was on Mahadeo's death the sole owner of the whole of the family property. He-is, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Bechar Vs. Mohan Javer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom121; (1929)31BOMLR1422
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 respondents are entitled to avoid the sale deed passed by them to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appellants and the defendants Nos. 8 and 4 respondents in 1912. Both the lower Courts have answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the sale deed in question, though ostensibly of the whole of a recognised portion of the Bhag, was, in reality, a sale deed of one-half, for half the recited amount, and the plaintiffs in reality retained possession of the other half themselves without receipt of the other half of the recited consideration. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeal.2. It is argued for the appellants that the sale deed in question, being on the face of it one for a recognised portion of the Bhag, does not offend against the provisions of the Bhagdari Act V of 1862, and that in any case the plaintiffs having taken advantage of the sale, should not be allowed to avoid it. For the respond' ents i...
Tag this Judgment!Marittima Italiana Steamship Company Vs. Burjor Framroze Rustomji Josh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom185; (1930)32BOMLR43
Norman Kemp, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Justice Kangnekar refusing to stay this suit under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. Shortly put, the suit is for damages in respect of a consignment of potatoes shipped on the defendant company's S. S. 'Arabia' at Naples on or about August 5, 1927. The goods arrived in Bombay on or about August 27, 1927, and a large portion of the consignment was discovered to be rotten and delivery of some 4900 baskets only was given. Of these also seventy-five per cent, were damaged. The plaintiff claims that the damage was due to improper ventilation and lack of reasonable and proper care by the defendant steamship company of the said goods.3. The defendant company took out a summons under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act praying for a stay of the suit by virtue of a clause in the bill of lading, which, they stated, provided for an arbitration of a dispute of this nature.4. Before proceeding to consider the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Dunichand Bishandas Vs. Comptoir National D'escompte D'paris
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom187; (1930)32BOMLR58
Norman Kemp, Kt., Ag. C.J. 1. By an agreement in November 1922 the plaintiffs purchased from the defendants 2,00,000 francs delivery March-April 1923, and on November 25, 1922, deposited by way of margin Rs. 10,000. This is, of course, the usual practice when anybody wishes to speculate in francs or anything else. Here, it may be mentioned that the due date was undoubtedly April 30, 1923.2. Certain correspondence took place after April 30, 1923, by which the defendants requested the plaintiffs to take delivery and the plaintiffs replied saying that the damages should be assessed as of April 30, 1923, The plaintiffs are a firm carrying on business at Amritsar in the Punjab, and the defendants are a bank carrying on business in Bombay.3. The plaintiffs sue for the balance of the sum of Rs. 10,000 margin money after giving what they say should be the amount of credit for the damages sustained by the defendants at the due date, viz., April 30, 1923, such damages being assessed as the diffe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »