Mumbai Court August 1930 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.
Radhakison Gopikison Vs. Balmukund Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1319
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sir Norman Kemp, and the first point which the learned Judge decided was that the action would not lie because it was a condition precedent to any action that there should be a reference to arbitration.2. The dispute arises on certain contracts made between the plaintiffs and the defendants, all of which are in the same form, the form being Ex. A. That is a document signed by the defendants and addressed to the plaintiff's, dated January 4, 1928, and it says:We request you to execute the following order on our account subject to the Rules and Regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited is applicable and also subject to the terms and conditions of your contract.Then follow various stipulations for the sale of certain cotton providing for payment and so forth. Upon the question whether there is a condition precedent that the matter should be referred to arbitration, the only material part of the contrac...
Gurlingappa Shivappa Masali and ors. Vs. Sabu Ramappa Kore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom218
Patkar, J. 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the decree obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2 was a collusive decree on the ground that defendant 2 in order to defraud the plaintiff's passed a hollow sale deed to his brother in law defendant 1 of his share in the plaint lands and that subsequently in collusion with defendant 2, defendant 1 brought a suit against defendant 2 on this sale deed and obtained an ex parte decree. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit and that the decree in Suit No. 332 of 1924 was obtained by defendant 1 collusively with defendant 2 as alleged by the plaintiffs, and therefore gave a declaration that the decree was collusive. 3. Two appeals were filed against the decree, Appeal No. 99 by the plaintiffs urging that the lower Court ought not to have merely given the declaration but ought to have set aside the decree, and Appeal No. 101 by defendant 1 attacking the gran...
Janardan Trimbak Gadre Vs. Dinkar Hari Rajguru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom189
Madgavkar, J. 1. The two questions in this appeal are, firstly, whether Article 131 or Article 62, Lim. Act, applies to the plaintiff respondent's claim for arrears of his share; and, secondly, whether the method of computation in regard to these arrears followed by the lower Courts is consistent with the decree between the parties in their previous litigation in appeal No. 211 of 1915 in the District Court of Poona, and Appeal No. 35 of 1918 from that decree in this Court. The plaintiff files cross objections in respect of judi. 2. Defendant 2, appellant, along with defendant 1, respondent, was inamdar of two villages, Pangri and Bhavdi. Their predecessor in title passed in 1843 a deed of gift in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff respondent. The latter filed a Suit No. 520 of 1909 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Khed against the defendants for a declaration of his recurring right and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in i...
Gulamali Sher Mahomed Vs. N.H. Moos
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1315
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This appeal, which is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell given in chambers in which he merely followed the previous decision of Mr. Justice Mirza in Durgaduti v. Bholaram : Vishvambharlal In re (1926) 29 Bom. L.R. 409, raises the short question whether when a receiver has been appointed in an administration action, but no decree has been made, the receiver ought to be directed to pay a judgment-creditor who has obtained an attachment notice under Order XXI, Rule 52, Civil Procedure Code. The administration action was started in 1927, and the receiver was appointed on February 28, 1927. On January 15, 1929, the applicant obtained a judgment in the Small Causes Court against certain defendants who are the heirs, or are so described, of the deceased Mahomed A. Shivji, in respect of whose estate the administration action is proceeding. The judgment of the Small Causes Court is that the defendants do pay the plaintiff the sum altogether of Rs. 675-10-...
Ammanibai Vs. Anant Narayan Shanbhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom365
Patkar, J. 1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 300 on the ground that the money was recovered from her in execution by her husband's creditor in contravention of the agreement made by defendant 1 with the plaintiff's husband. 2. The plaintiff's husband had passed a promissory note on 30th July 1910, in favor of one Kencha. On 14th August 1912 he sold his property to defendant 1 who agreed to pay Rs. 121-10-4 due to Kencha, the creditor of the vendor, Defendant 1 did not pay the amount as agreed and Kencha sued the plaintiff's husband and defendant 1 on the promissory note and obtained a decree against the plaintiff's husband in January 1916. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff on 22nd August 1924. The amount was recovered by Kencha from the plaintiff in execution of his decree on 31st August 1921. The point arising in the case is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was within time. The l...
The Calico Printers' Association Ltd. Vs. A.A. Karim and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom566; (1930)32BOMLR1305
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order, made by Mr. Justice Blackwell in chambers, in which ho directed the plaintiffs' plaint to be taken off the file. The point raises a rather troublesome question of practice on which Mr. Justice K. Kemp in chambers came to a conclusion different from that at which Mr. Justice Blackwell arrived in the present case and although Mr. Justice Blackwell in a later case followed the decision of Mr. Justice K. Kemp, he still thought his original point of view was right.2. Now, the point is this. The plaintiffs are a company registered in England and also registered under Section 277 of the Indian Companies Act, and they commenced this action to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants from importing and/or selling certain articles under a trade-mark similar to that of the plaintiffs, and the plaint was signed by Mr. C. M. Eastley, described as a partner in the firm of Messrs, Little & Co., attorneys for and duly constituted attorney...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. the Vacuum Oil Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1308
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Blackwell, and it raises an important question under the Sea Customs Act. The question is by no means free from difficulty, but as it lies in a small compass, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by reserving our judgment.2. The facts, which are to be found very clearly expressed in the judgment of Mr. Justice Blackwell, are not, I think, really in dispute, and for the purpose of my judgment can be stated quite shortly.3. The plaintiffs are manufacturers, on a large scale in America, of lubricating oils, and they import very large quantities-as much as 80,000 gallons a month-to Bombay, They are in fact the largest importers of lubricating oil to Bombay. They import one class of lubricating oil, viz. mobil oil, in tins, and those tins they sell to dealers, who distribute retail amongst their customers. The rest of the lubricating oil imported by the plaintiffs is imported for the most part in barrels and it is all dealt ...
Kedarnath Shersinghdas and anr. Vs. Nomanbhai Koorban HooseIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom175
Wadia, J.1. These two matters which have come up before me in chambers for the purpose of determining whether the respondent in each case can claim exemption from arrest Under Section 135, Civil P.C., in execution of an award filed in this Court in each of the two matters respectively. Both the matters were ordered by no to be heard together on counsel's chamber day, as there was a common question of law in either of them and counsel wished to argue it before me. (After setting out the facts in the two cases, his Lordship proceeded.) Section 135, Civil P.C., provides inter alia that when a matter is pending before a competent Court or tribunal, a party to that matter is exempt from arrest while going to or attending the tribunal for the purpose of such matter and while returning from such Court or tribunal. The principle on which that provision is based has been stated to be that freedom from fear of arrest encourages willing attendance on the part of the party in Court where his matte...
Bai Mani and ors. Vs. Usafali Bhudar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom229; 136Ind.Cas.173
Patkar, J. 1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover from defendant 3 and the joint family estate of the other defendants the sum misappropriated by the deceased Bhimashankar Motiram who was the guardian of the minor appointed by the District Judge of Ahmedabad. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree against the estate of the deceased Bhimashankar Motiram in the hands of the other defendants and the joint estate of defendants 3 and 4 and a personal decree only against defendant 8 on the ground that he hid signed a statement on 17th August 1925. Defendant 1 is the widow, defendant 2 the son, and defendants 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased Bhimashankar. On appeal by the defendants no cross objections were filed by the plaintiff, and the learned Assistant Judge varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and passed a decree against defendants I to 4 and made them personally liable. 3. It is urged in this second appeal that the decree, in so far as it made de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›