Mumbai Court September 1931 Judgments
Chunilal Omkarmal Vs. Chaturbhuj Piramal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom206; (1932)34BOMLR17
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kemp and the suit arises in this way. On May 14, 1924, the plaintiffs filed a suit against one Shankarrao Gavde to recover a sum of approximately two lacs of rupees. On May 15, the plaintiffs obtained a warrant for attachment before judgment of the moneys due by the defendant in this action (who is and whom we will refer to as 'the appellant') toShankarrao. On May 16, the order for attachment was served on the appellant. On September 3, the plaintiffs obtained a decree against Shankarrao for the amount claimed in their suit. On September 25, the prohibitory order of attachment was continued and leave was given to the plaintiffs to file a suit against the appellant to establish their claim to the moneys attached. On December 2, the present suit was filed accordingly and in their plaint the plaintiffs ask for a declaration (a) that the defendant was indebted to Shankarrao in a sum ofRs. 2,00,000 or thereabouts wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Shantilal Vs. Chunilal Damodardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom163; (1932)34BOMLR252; 137Ind.Cas.397
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the learned Chamber Judge on a summons taken out by the defendants in a summary suit for leave to defend, in which the learned Judge directed that the defendants on depositing in Court a sumof Rs. 5,000 by a date named therein should have leave to defend and that the suit should thereupon be transferred to the list of commercial causes, and in default of the defendants depositing the said sum of Rs. 5,000 within the time aforesaid the chamber summons should be dismissed, and in that event the defendants should pay the costs of the chamber summons.2. The first point taken on appeal is a preliminary point that no appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We have recently considered that clause, and putting it shortly, the view which has always prevailed in this Court since the decision in Miya Mahomed v. Zorabi (1909) 11 Bom. L.R. 241 is that any order affecting the merits of the question between the parties by d...
Tag this Judgment!H. Scott Vs. Jitta Amichand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1931
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR529
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made in chambers by Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia. The suit was filed on April 23, 1031, and the plaintiff was described as ' Messrs. Jitta Amichand and Co., a firm of bankers carrying on business at Karwar Street within the Forti of Bombay', and the declaration of the plaint was made in the name of Naimal Pratapmat described as a 'partner in the plaintiff firm residing at Karwar Street in Bombay.' Various applications were made by the defendant's attorneys to-the plaintiff's attorneys to ascertain the names of the partners in the alleged plaintiff firm, and it is not putting it too high to say that the plaintiff's attorneys put off those requests. Eventually on August 5, 1931, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte order enabling him to amend the plaint by describing: the plaintiff as ' Naimal Pratapmal of Bombay Marwari carrying on business as Jitta Amichand & Co.' That is to say the plaintiffs substituted the name of an individual for...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahimbhai Fazalbhai Joomabhai Laljee Vs. Yoosuf Ismailbhai Abdullabh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom134; (1932)34BOMLR12; 137Ind.Cas.456
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Wadia extending the time for sale of certain partnership property. The action is a partnership action started in 1921 and in 1927 an order was made directing the Commissioner to sell certain salt pans at Aden which formed part of the partnership property. On October 9, 1930, an order was made by consent of most of the parties, including the present appellant who is defendant No. 9, and in invitumagainst the plaintiff and I think one of the defendants, and by that order the Commissioner was directed to sell the salt pans on November 15, 1931. On July 24, 1931, certain defendants, other than the appellant, moved the Court to extend the time for sale and that application was opposed by the appellant On August 6, 1931, the learned Judge made an order extending the time of the sale until next April. From that order the appellant appeals, his contention I gather on merits being that the order of October 9,1930, was a c...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhudas Girdhardas Shah Vs. Lallubhai Khushal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom117; (1932)34BOMLR35; 137Ind.Cas.710
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs who are a firm carrying on business as commission agents in Bombay sue the three defendants for a sum of Rs. 3,150, balance agreed by defendant No. 1 to be paid in respect of purchase price of goods sold and delivered. The plaint alleges in paragraph 1 that the defendants are members of a joint undivided Hindu family and that defendant No. 1 is the manager of the joint family business. Then in paragraph 3 it is alleged that the plaintiffs from time to time under instructions of the defendants purchased in Bombay various goods and consigned them to the defendants at Pen, and then it is alleged that an account was made up when a sum of Rs. 3,150 was found due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs at foot thereof, and that the defendants through their said manager, defendant No. 1, signed an acknowledgment in respect of the plaintiffs' goods. So that, reading the plaint as a whole, I think it is clearly a claim against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Someshwar Rajaram Bhat Vs. Manilal Bhailal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom210; (1932)34BOMLR206; 137Ind.Cas.603
Shingne, J.1. These are two companion applications arising out of the following facts, A joint Hindu family consisting of three branches owned certain immoveable property. One of the three branches is represented now bySomeshwar Jivram, the other by Someshwar Rajaram, and the third haunch has two sub-branches, one of which is represented by Chunilal, the junior brother of one Trambaklal, who was the judgment-debtor, with the sale of whose proprietary interest in the property we are now concerned.2. One of the coparceners out of the family filed a partition-suit in August 1926. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on September 14, 1927. A final decree was passed on January 18, 1929. As a result of the final decree, six definitely statedlots went to the branch of Someshwar Jivram and nine lots went to the branch of Someshwar Rajaram. The third branch got the rest of the lots. There were thirty six lots in all in the suit.3. One Manilal, the opponent to the present petition, had ob...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Shriram Vs. Shivnarayan Ramdayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom202; (1932)34BOMLR203
Baker, J.1. The facts of this appeal are simple. According to the Subordinate Judge the point has not come before the High Court before. The facts are that the plaintiffs obtained a decree in the High Court against the defendant on June 27, 1930, and on September 2, 1930, on the application of the plaintiffs, the decree was transferred to the Sholapur First Class Subordinate Judge's Court for execution through the District Court. Immediately on the decree being transferred to the First Class Court at Sholapur, the plaintiffs made an application for execution, and the judgment-debtors contended that there had been an adjustment between them and the plaintiffs in Bombay prior to the transfer of the decree for execution to Sholapur. The transfer was on September 2, 1930, and the alleged adjustment was on the same day as the decree, viz., June 27. The First Class Subordinate Judges of Sholapur held that he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of whether this adjustment had been made...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Barjorji Framji Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom196; (1932)34BOMLR258
Patkar, J.1 In this case the applicants were proceeded against under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code on a complaint filed on June 10,1931, by Mr. Antia, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was deputed by the Superintendent of Police to proceed to Udwada and inquire into the affair. It is alleged that Mr. Antia arrived at Udwada on June 7, 1931, and held an investigation, in the course of which he recorded statements of several persons, and as a result of his investigation he decided to take proceedings against the applicants under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. In the lower Court, after the examination of certain witnesses, an application was made to get copies of the statements made by the witnesses to Mr. Antia in the investigation which he is alleged to have made. The learned Magistrate refused to give copies on the ground that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply.3. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that a person against whom...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Rudrappa Tenginkai Vs. Rudrava Chanbasappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom410; (1932)34BOMLR539
Patkar, J.1. [After setting out facts as above the judgment proceeded]: The first question arising in the case is whether the oral wills of Chennappa and Eudrappa are proved, According to the decision of the Privy Council in Venkat Rao v. Namdeo (1931) L.R. 58 IndAp 362 the onus would be on the defendants to establish the oral wills of Chennappa and Rudrappa and they would have to discharge it as if they were propounding a will for probate. Such an onus is always a heavy one as observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Baboo Beer Pertab Sahee v. Maharajah Rajender Pertab Sahee (1867) 12 M.I.A. 1But if any party is bound to strictnes of pleading, it is he who seta up a nuncupative Will, He who rests his title on so uncertain a foundation as the spoken words of a man, since deceased, is bound to allege, as well as to prove, with the utmost precision, the words on which he relies, with every circumstance of time and place.2. [At this point the evidence as to the oral wills by Ch...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Adamali Mahomedali Nulvala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom580; (1932)34BOMLR1162
Wadia, J. 1. One Adamali Mahomadali Nulvala was adjudicated insolvent on August 13, 1931, on the petition of Messrs. Wagner and Englert, petitioning creditors, The petitioning creditors allege in their petition that the insolvent was indebted to them in the sum of Rs. 1856-5-6 being the amount of three D/A drafts which were honoured by the insolvent by acceptance but subsequently dishonoured by non-payment. The act of insolvency alleged in the petition is that the insolvent within three months before the date of the petition executed a deed of sale in favour of one Jafferji Pirbhai assigning to him all the good-will and interest in his business which he carried on in his shop at Kika Street together with all its stock-in-trade etc. with intent to defeat or delay his creditors.2. The insolvent applies for an annulment of the adjudication order on the ground that he is not indebted to the petitioning creditors in the sum of Re. 1,856-5-6 as alleged, and that he has not committed the act ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »