Mumbai Court March 1930 Judgments
Bhaishankar Motiram Vs. Lakshmi Dyeing Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom449; (1930)32BOMLR1031; 129Ind.Cas.588
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The question here is whether defendant No. 2 is liable for a debt contracted by the Lakshmi Dyeing Works, of which firm defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had both been partners, but of which at the date of the transactions in question defendant No. 1 was the sole partner or proprietor, and defendant No. 2 had retired. The learned Judge held that it was doubtful whether Section 264 of the Indian Contract Act applied, as defendant No. 1 dealt with the plaintiff for the first time after a change in constitution, and that accordingly defendant No. 2 was not liable. The exact dates are as follows. The dissolution was on August 20,1926; the goods in question were supplied by the plaintiffs on November 12, 1926 ; and notice of dissolution was given on January 2, 1927. 2. As regards the ground taken by the learned Judge, viz., that Section 264 of the Indian Contract Act does not apply to new customers, that section runs : 'Persons dealing with a firm will not be affected by ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bechardas Narotamdas Munshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR768
Mirza, J.1. These are five revisional applications against the orders of the Sessions Judge of Broach who has confirmed the convictions of the applicants by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Broach, for certain offences under the Bombay City Municipalities Act, 1925, but has varied the sentences originally imposed. The applications have been heard together.2. In Revision Application No. 460 of 1929, the facts found were that the applicant had in 1927 constructed a house without previously obtaining the permission of the Broach Municipality in that behalf. The Broach Municipality prosecuted the applicant for the offence and the applicant was convicted and fined Rs. 100 on October 10, 1927. On April 30, 1929, the Municipality filed the present complaint alleging that the house constructed by the applicant and allowed to remain undemolished by her was a continuing contravention of the provisions of Section 123(7) of the Bombay City Municipalities Act, The First Class Sub-Division...
Tag this Judgment!Rangu Nyahalchand Shet Vani Vs. Lakshman Martand Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR948
Shingne, J.1. The defendant obtained a money decree against One Damu, one of the sons of the plaintiff in this case, and in execution attached what the defendant contended to be the undivided share of Damu in the house in suit. The plaintiff applied to get the attachment removed on the ground that the house was his self-acquired property and that Damu had no interest therein. The application was rejected. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit and prayed for a declaration that the house was not liable to be attached and sold. He also contended that though Damu had no interest in the house he had paid him Rs. 1,000 and settled his claim (if any).2. The defendant contended that the house was joint family property of the plaintiff and his sons. The defendant, moreover, denied knowledge of the settlement alleged by the plaintiff and contended that even if there was a settlement effected as alleged, it could not be proved without a registered document.3. The Court of first instanc...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganbhai Ichhabhai Patel Vs. Tulshibhai Lallu Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom448; (1930)32BOMLR930
Shingne, J.1. The admitted or proved facts are that the property in dispute appertained to the narva of one Jethabhai who died in 1896-97 leaving two sisters as his heirs. One of them, viz., Bai Raiba, died in 1904 and the other died in 1906. Jethabhai during his life-time had executed a lease on December 28, 1893, in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2'a father and defendant No. 3's grandfather. The possession had throughout continued with the family of the defendants. Bai Raiba's son passed a sale-deed in respect of the plaint property in favour of the plaintiff in 1924, and the plaintiff brought the present suit and claimed therein a declaration that the alienation in favour of the defendants' ancestors was void under the Bhagdari and Narvadari Act, and that even if it was not void, it was in the nature of a mortgage, and accounts should be taken and redemption ordered.2. The Court of first instance held that the suit could not succeed because it was barred by limitation, and as to th...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Vora Vs. the Japan Cotton Trading Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1343
Blackwell, J.1. This is a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal. In the written statement, the defendants submit inter alia that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. By a consent Judge's order, dated August 26, 1929, a trial of the preliminary issue as to limitation was ordered. That issue is before me.2. The plaintiff was dismissed by the defendants on June 30, 1925. Accordingly the institution of a suit would be within time provided that the suit was commenced not later than June 30, 1928.3. As appears from an endorsement of one of the assistants in the Prothonotary's office, the plaintiff presented a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis to the Court on June 28, 1928. The petition bears thereon an endorsement signed by the acting Prothonotary that it was to be interpreted and declared gratis, and the date of that endorsement is June SO, 1928. The petition itself was signed and solemnly declared on July 3, 1928. It further appears from an endorsement on the petition t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sama Jetha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR764
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the City Magistrate, First Class, Surat Sub-Division, ordering the applicant to pay to the opponent Rs. 12 per month for maintenance under the provisions of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant contends that the Court at Surat had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.2. The applicant is a permanent resident of Bombay. He has been in the employment of the Bombay Municipality for more than twenty-five years last and is in receipt of a salary of Rs. 24 per month from that body. He has a wife by regular marriage who resides with him in Bombay. Five years ago he married the opponent at Surat as his natra wife. After the marriage the opponent resided with the applicant in Bombay as his wife along with the applicant's first wife. The opponent was ill-treated by the applicant and his first wife, and as the opponent and the applicant could not live amicably together at Bombay, the applicant called his mo...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Bhaichand Vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1001
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to obtain a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants from obstructing them or their men, carts and ploughs while passing through the passage in suit.2. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of Survey No. 118-B. To the north of Survey No. 1 08-B there is Survey No. 118-A owned by the Saraspur Manufacturing Company, Limited, now in liquidation, defendant No. 1 being appointed the liquidator. But the survey numbers originally belonged to one Chhagan Jhaver and his two sons. Chhagan Jhaver sold Survey No. 118-A to one Panachand Gopal in 1902. Panachand's daughter sold it to one Lalbhai Sheth on June 28, 1907, by Exhibit 40. The interest of Lalbhai was conveyed to the Saraspur Manufacturing Company on May 31, 1924. The plaintiffs purchased Survey No. 118-B by Exhibit 23 dated July 9, 1904. In the sale-deed passed to the plaintiffs there is a recital as follows :-The owner of this field has got a way through the field o...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Mahadu Jadhav Vs. Forbes, Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom569; (1930)32BOMLR1336
Blackwell, J.1. This suit is in substance, though not in form, a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal.2. In papagraph 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleges that on October 25, 1926, the Shire Highlands Railway Nyasaland Limited agreed to employ the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to serve as a boiler-maker in their workshop at Limbe, in East Africa, for a period of three years on a salary of 13 (sterling) per mensem. In paragraph fi of the plaint it is alleged as follows:-The agreement has been signed by the defendants as the agents of the said Shire Highlands Railway Nyasaland Ltd. Notwithstanding this the plaintiff claims to sue the defendants for breach of contract firstly because although the agreement purported to have been made with the Shire Highlands Railway Nyasaland Ltd., the agreement was made both in intention and effect with the defendants and it is to the defendants that the plaintiff looked for satisfaction and secondly because the said Shiro Highlands Railway Nya...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Pandharinath Soman Vs. Premchand Gulabchand Gujarati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR919
Shingne, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit No. 202 of 1917 against one Pandharinath and his brother Dattatraya and two others for account and for the balance due in respect of a partnership. A final decree was passed on October 19,1921, ordering Pandharinath, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, to pay to the respondents (the original plaintiffs) the sum of money stated in the decree, Pandharinath, defendant No. 1, died in 1923. His brother Dattatraya, who was defendant No. 2 to the suit, had predeceased him.2. The decree-holders (the present respondents) then filed a darkhast and attached certain properties belonging to the joint family. This darkhast was filed during the lifetime of Pandharinath, and the attachment was made when he was alive. On his death, the darkhast was withdrawn and a fresh darkhast was filed. It is this darkhast which led to the present second appeal.3. The appellants who are the sons of Pandharinath filed an application in the darkhast proceeding. ...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari Vs. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR924
Shingne, J.1. This was a suit for partition brought by one Radhabai, daughter of a Hindu by name Krishnarao. Defendant No. 1 is a purchaser from Narayan who was defendant No. 5. This Narayan was Krishnarao's brother and died after the decision of the suit in the trial Court.2. Hari, Mahadev, Narayan and Krishnarao, were four brotherers. At one time they formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School, They had income from a jahagir and they owned other properties too. It is admitted by both the parties to this suit that the suit lands are ancestral properties. The four brothers effected a partition of. the jahagir income amongst themselves long time back and as a consequence each one of them got a two annas share which was separately paid to them. In course of time, Hari separated first in respect of the rest of the property and later on Mahadev separated. The question in this case is whether Narayan and Krishnarao held the property in suit as joint tenants so that on the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »