Mumbai Court September 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.
Bansilal Motilal Vs. Govindlal Bansilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom439; (1932)34BOMLR733; 140Ind.Cas.819
Wadia, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff for an order that a certain sum of money be set apart out of joint family funds for the maintenance and upkeep out of the interest thereon of a temple situate on a part of the property known as'Raghunath Baug' in the Residency Area, Hyderabad, Deccan, and that a further sum be also set apart sufficient to erect a small wall around the said temple in order to separate the land set apart for the temple from the rest of the land, The suit was filed by the plaintiff as far back as 1917 for partition of the moveable and immoveable properties in the hands of his late father Motilal Shivlal and for other reliefs. A consent decree was taken in this suit on October 12, 1922, and under one of its clauses there was a reference to the Commissioner to ascertain the joint family properties, and the Commissioner was authorised by the Court to sell the immoveable properties by public auction or by private contract with the consent of th...
Murlidhar Narayandas Gujarathi Vs. Parmanand Luchmandas Gujarathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom190; (1932)34BOMLR164; 137Ind.Cas.560
Shingne, J.1. Plaintiff brought this suit to obtain possession of a house with mesne profits from defendant No. 2 who was in possession of the house at the date of the suit.2. The house belonged to one Valibai who was the absolute owner of it. She died in September 1919, and defendant No. 1, her daughter, was her only heir. It see ma that the house was kept in the possession of defendant No. 2 who was related to the deceased Valibai, as defendant No. 1 resided at Barhanpur.3. Defendant No. 1 entered into a contract to sell the house to the plaintiff. The contract was made on November 15, 1923. A sale-deed was passed in pursuance of the contract on February 8 1924, and was registered according to law.4. Defendant No. 1 admitted the sale to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 raised various contentions, set up an oral will made by Valibai in his favour subject to a condition of payment of Rs. 1,000 to defendant No. 1. He also set up two kararnamas in his favour, stated to have been passed by ...
Devidatt Ramniranjandas Vs. Shriram Narayandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom291; (1932)34BOMLR236; 137Ind.Cas.381
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell. The question at issue is whether the firm of Anupsing Batumal, in which defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5, who are the respondents in this appeal, were partners, was itself a partner in the firm of Narayandas Shriram. The question is ultimately one of fact, but the case raises some interesting points of law.2. The suit as originally constituted was against four defendants of whom the second was Anupsing Thakersidas. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they had been employed by the defendants as brokers and Pakka Adatias and they claimed payment of Rs. 7,305-10-3, or alternatively Rs. 5,256-11-6 if the firm of Anupsing Batumal was liable, as the balance due on the accounts. Paragraph 7 of the plaint contained an allegation that a material part of the cause of action having arisen in Bombay, with leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.3. Soon after th...
In Re: Manekji Petit Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom311; (1932)34BOMLR728; 140Ind.Cas.814
Wadia, J.1. By an order dated April 7, 1931, the Manockjee Petit ., was ordered to be compulsorily wound up by and under the directions of the Court, and the official liquidator, after his appointment, duly investigated the claims of the different creditors of the company. One of the creditors, Messrs. Shantidas Vithaldas & Co., claimed to rank as a preferential creditor for Rs. 3,06,750 with further interest from May 16, 1931, at the rate of six per cent. per annum with six monthly rests. The claim to rank as a preferential creditor was disputed by the liquidator, and by an order dated August 17, 1931, the claim was ordered to be proved before roe in chambers. The said company owned three milk for spinning and manufacturing yarn and cloth, called the Manockjee Petit Mills, theBomanjee Petit Mills, and the Dinshaw Petit Mills. It had appointed Messrs. Devidas Madhowji Thakersey & Co. as selling agents on the terms and conditions contained in an agreement dated November10, 1925. On July...
Jhaverchand Dalichand Vs. Achaldas Chimnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom352; (1932)34BOMLR721; 140Ind.Cas.809
Wadia, J.1. This is a summons taken out by the applicants who are a firm of attorneys for the purpose of enforcing the lien which they claim in respect of the costs, charges and expenses incurred by them on behalf of the plaintiff in this suit and/or another suit also filed by the plaintiff, being suit No. 1638 of 1928. The plaintiff is the paternal uncle's son of one Shivlal Motichand who died in 1924, and he filed suit No. 1638 of 1928 against the present defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and against the mother of the deceased Shivlal, alleging that he was a coparcener with Shivlal and that the adoption of defendant No. 2 by the widow of Shivlal was invalid and inoperative. The plaintiff 's former solicitors were Messrs.Khandwala and Chhotalal, but before the suit reached hearing he changed his attorneys and engaged the applicants who took over the conduct of the suit. The suit was heard before Rangnekar, J. on January 29, 1931, and it was dismissed with costs. The costs payable by the plai...
The National Bank of India Ltd. Vs. R.C. Nazir and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom401; (1932)34BOMLR748
Tyabji, J.1. The point I have to determine is, whether a valid equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds has been made between the parties.2. There is, in the case, an unregisted document, Ex. YI, consisting of a letter addressed by the original defendant No. 4 to the plaintiffs, in the following terms:-I beg to state the fact that the title-deeds of my immovaable property-situate at Chinchpookly, Bombay, were lodged by me with your bank on May 30, 1919, as guarantor for any possible indebtedness of Messrs. R.C. Nazir & Co.I also beg to state that my guarantee is not to be affected at any time or indulgence given or shown by you to Messrs. R.C. Nazir & Co. whether I have knowledge thereof or not.3. The questions arise whether the letter ought to have been registered; and whether, in the absence of registration, it can be relied upon by the plaintiffs, or the transaction can be otherwise proved. 4. The letter refers to the deposit with the bank of title-deeds. The object was to creat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›