Mumbai Court January 1931 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.
Shamrao Ramohandra Jadhav Vs. Malkarjun Apparao Manthalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR797
Baker, J.1. The question in this appeal is one arising in execution proceedings. The plaintiff obtained a decree in suit No. 1549 of 1920 against one Ramchandra and two other partners in a partnership matter. There was an appeal to the High Court, but before the appeal, a darkhast was presented for attachment and sale of the property of Ramchandra defendant No. 1. It happened that Ramchandra died between the application for execution and the attachment of the property, and the property passed to his legal representative, his son Shamrao, who is the present appellant. Shamrao contended that being an agriculturist the property could not be attached and sold. That application was decided against him on January 16, 1926. On March 15, 1926, the High Court passed a preliminary decree, and there was a final decree on October 1, 1926. The execution proceedings were continued and proclamations were issued for sale of the properties, but separately as regards the right, title and interest of the...
Raj Kumar Gobinda Naeayan Singh Vs. Sham Lal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR885
George Lowndes, J.1. The appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises, represent in two moieties an important permanently settled zemindari known as the Pandara Raj. It seems to have been originally part of the Jungle Mehal, but is now included in the District of Manbhum. The appearing respondents are the Thakur of Achra and two other persons representing part-purchasers of the Achra estate. The Thakurs are a junior branch of the Pandara family, and are in possession of the remnants of thirty-two villages known as Taraf Achra. The question for determination in the appeal is as to the coalmining rights in one of these villages named Dendua. In 1912 the guardian of the Thakur, who was then a minor, and his co-owner leased Dendua for mining purposes to the Dendua Coal Company, who, in the same year, transferred their rights to the New Manbhum Coal Company. In 1915 the appellants sued the latter company and the present respondents in the Court of the Subordinate J...
Haji Shakoor Gany Vs. H.E. Hinde and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom330; (1932)34BOMLR634
Blackwell, J.1. On June 27, 1930, the plaintiffs as the holders for value of bills of lading for 27,398 bags of sugar loaded on a ship owned by defendants No. 1 brought this suit to recover from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 damages in respect of a short delivery of 1078 cwts., 2 quarters and 26 lbs. This short delivery is admitted. The suit was also framed in conversion in respect of certain sweepings. That claim and the issues raised thereon were abandoned at the hearing.2. The pleadings as originally framed were defective on both sides, and I allowed certain amendments both of the plaint and of the points of defence in order that all the matters in dispute between the parties might be properly determined.3. The ship arrived on May 4, 1929, and was completely discharged on May 8, 1929. Having regard to Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit against defendants No. 1 was prima facie barred,-the suit not having been brought until June 27, 1930. In order to meet this difficulty the ...
Emperor Vs. Janardan Kashinath Abhyankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR340
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision from a conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court. The accused was convicted under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XIV of 1908 and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the case shortly are that the accused was arrested at 7 a.m. on October 15, 1930, and was charged for being a member of an unlawful association known as Satyagraha Volunteers or Congress Volunteers, which was declared an unlawful association by a notification in the Bombay Government Gazette dated October 14, 1930. The accused pleaded guilty, but the learned Magistrate, having merely recorded that plea by the letters ' A.P.G.' which means ' accused pleads guilty', then proceeded to hear evidence as to the facts giving rise to the charge, and in the result he says in his judgment, 'the accused is found guilty and convicted and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment.2. Now the reference was made to this...
Faqir Baksh Vs. Murli Dhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR495
Macmillan, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit, Shaikh Faqir Bakhsh, and the defendant Murli Dhar, are joint proprietors pro indiviso of a property in the city of Lucknow known as Rahimganj, on which a large block of shops has been erected. The entire property was formerly owned by one Khuda Baksh, but it is now held in the proportions roughly of one-eighth and seven-eighths by the parties mentioned, who acquired their respective shares in it by purchase. When the plaintiff bought his one-eighth share on April 1, 1921, the defendant Murli Dhar had already acquired his seven-eighths share. At the time when the latter purchased his share of the entire property, a portion of it consisting of three shops, was in the occupation of the plaintiff as tenant under a lease at a monthly rent of Rs. 14-8-0, and this lease was current when the plaintiff himself purchased the remaining one-eighth share of the entire property.2. In the present proceedings the plaintiff, now the appellant, asks that an ac...
Obla Sundarachariar Vs. Narayana Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR878
Tomlin, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in 1921 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Madura by one Samoo Battar, a moneylender doing business in Palghat, Madras, and other places. He claimed in effect to enforce an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds to secure Rs. 60,000 and interest and to recover a personal judgment for the amount of the mortgage-debt so far as the security should prove insufficient.2. The defendants to the suit were the members of a joint family firm trading at Madura. The present appellants, who are assignees of the interest of the joint family firm in the property comprised in the title deeds in question, were brought into the suit as additional defendants.3. On November 3, 1923, the Subordinate Judge made the usual mortgage decree for the amount claimed and costs with a direction for sale in default of payment and with liberty for the plaintiff if the proceeds of sale of the property proved insufficient to apply for a sup...
Shankar Balchand Marwadi Vs. Hiralal Balchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR858
Patkar, J. 1. This is an appeal in execution of the decree in First Appeal No. 243 of 1913, decided on June 21, 1915. The last application for execution was in darkhast No. 1048 of 1925 filed on October 3, 1925, The order in the execution proceedings was confirmed by the High Court on November 20, 1928. Defendant No. 3 was a surety for defendant No. 2 in the original suit, and the High Court confirmed the liability of defendant No. 8 on November 20, 1928. Defendant No. 3 died on January 10, 1929, and the present application was made to continue the execution proceedings against the legal representatives of the surety defendant No. 3. The lower Court allowed the application.2. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that it was necessary for the decree-holder to bring a separate application for execution against the legal representative of the surety defendant No. 3, and that such an application would be beyond time under Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, having been made more than...
Krishnaji Gopinath Rele Vs. Ramchandra Kashinath Mastakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1377
Wadia, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the plaintiff for determination of certain questions arising under a contract for sale dated January 25, 1930, under which he agreed to sell his property situate at Falkland Road, Bombay, to the defendant for the sum of Rs. 37,5C0. There are three questions on the originating summons, the principal one being whether the plaintiff as vendor has made out a marketable title to the property. The summons came on for hearing before me in Chambers on July 7, 1930, when the defendant contended that the questions could not be decided on the summons, but should be raised in a regular suit. The summons was, however, adjourned into Court for hearing and final disposal. The property contains by admeasurement-1555 square yards together with the building standing thereon. Under Clause 5 of the agreement the vendor agreed to make out a marketable title to the property ' to the satisfaction of the purchaser's attorneys', and to clear all defects i...
Mahomedalli Essabhoy Vs. Dharamsey Jaitha and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR702
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for stay of execution. It appears that there were arbitration proceedings in which an award was made against the applicant, and they presented a petition to the Court to upset the award and that petition was refused. There is an appeal to this Court from the order of refusal.2. Mr. Bahadurji on behalf of the respondents takes the point that we have no jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, to grant a stay, because that rule only applies where there is a decree or order appealed from, and he says that the award, although it could be enforced as a decree under Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, is not technically a decree. That contention is, I think, technically correct, but in my view we have inherent jurisdiction to grant a stey of execution under an award where the application to set aside the award has been refused, and there is an appeal to this Court in the matter. In exercising our inherent jurisd...
Dolatsing Hamirsing Vs. Joravarsing Naransing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR783
Baker, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is in respect of toda giras hah. The pedigree is given in the judgment of the lower Court.2. The original holder was one Parbatsingji, who died in 1839 leaving two sons, Chhatrasingjee and Jasvatsinghjee. Chhatrasinghji died in 1880, and Jaavatsinghjee died in 1868 leaving a widow Surajba. It appears that the hah was divided between Chhatrasinghjee and Jasvatsingjee, and after his death it was entered in the name of his widow Surajba. It was not divided equally, but in the proportion of Rs. 0-9-6 in a rupee to Chhatrasingjee and the balance to Javatsingjee and his widow. The original plaintiff Bhimsingjee is the son of Chhatrasingjee. Defendant No. 1 is the grandson of Chhatrasingjee, being the son of Jitsingjee, the eldest son of Chhatrasingjee. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are brothers of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 6 is the nephew of defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 5 is the son of Naransingjee who was the third son of Chhatras...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »