Mumbai Court September 1932 Judgments
Aishabai Vs. Ismail Sakhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom112; (1933)35BOMLR38
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is tin appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Blackwell dismissing the petition of a wife to have her husband adjudicated a lunatic. The appellant is the wife, and a preliminary point is taken that from such an order she has no right of appeal. That question involves in the first place the question whether the order is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a question which has very frequently been considered in this Court. I may for convenience refer to a short summary of the decisions in a judgment of mine in Ramanlal v. Chunilal (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. 252 where at page 253 I said :-.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 determining some right or liability is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.In that case, and in the cases on which the summary was based, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Alli Hassan Limbuvala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom63; (1932)34BOMLR1662
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 26 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act (Bom. Act VII of 1920) A and Section 123 of the Indian Railways Act, IX of 1890. The learned Honorary Presidency Magistrate acquitted the accused presumably on the ground that the place, where the accused was found, being included within the limits of the railway district, was not included within the limits of the city of Bombay for the purpose of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act, and that the railway police had no power to arrest the accused for an offence under an enactment which was confined only to the city of Bombay.2. Under s. SO of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act VII of 1920 any police-officer may arrest without warrant any person who has committed any offence under this Act, and may seize and detain any conveyance or horse in relation to which such offence has been committed. Similarly, Section 123 of the Indian Railways Act refers to the disobedience of the reasonable dir...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Keshrimal Jhalani Vs. H.H. Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom80; (1933)35BOMLR26
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania. The official liquidator of the Rutlam Bombay United Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) applied to the Judge in winding-up to settle the list of contributories of the company and to include therein the name of the present appellant as the holder of 450 shares. The learned Judge made the order asked for, and from that order this appeal is brought.2. [His Lordship Bet out the facts of the case, and then proceeded.] The claim of the company is a startling one. In the most formal manner the company purported to forfeit the appellant's shares, and thereby to terminate the contractual relations between the company and the appellant, and for some two years they acted upon the view that the forfeiture was valid. They now seek to set aside the forfeiture, and to restore the contractual relations between the company and the appellant, on the basis of their own, default in carrying out the forfeiture. It is c...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Thakoredas Parekh Vs. Chhotalal Mulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom76; (1932)34BOMLR1639
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues the defendant on a promissory note dated January 14, 1928, for a sum of Rs. 9,000 odd. The promissory note is Exhibit A, and it is given by the defendant to one Vajifdar, by whom it was endorsed, in favour of the plaintiff.2. The defence of the defendant is that the promissory note was given in respect of the balance due by the defendant to Vajifdar in respect of transactions carried out by the latter on the Native Share & Stock Exchange, and he says that those contracts under the rules of the Exchange were void, and consequently, no action will lie on a promissory note given in respect of that consideration. He further says that the plaintiff was at all material times a clerk of Vajifdar and knew the nature of the transactions between Vajifdar and the defendant, and knew that those transactions were invalid, and, therefore, the plaintiff is not a holder in due course,3. The first question to determine is whet her there is any ...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanlal Narsi Vs. Pirojshaw R. Vakharia and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR15
Blackwell, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded:] The Advocate General took the point that no appeal lay against a refusal to stay a suit. He submitted that an order refusing to stay was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. He referred to a decision of this High Court, Ibrahimbhai v. Yoosuf (1831) 34 Bom. L.R. 12. In that case an order had been passed by a Judge on the Original Side of the High Court fixing a date for the sale of partnership property, It was held that neither that order nor a subsequent order varying the date of the sale was a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, and no appeal lay. In the course of his judgment, the learned Chief Justice said this (p. 14) :-A preliminary point has been taken by the respondents on this appeal that no appeal from the order lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. That question involves consideration of the meaning of the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters ...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanlal Vrajrai Desai Vs. Vrajlal Pochalal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom251; (1933)35BOMLR415; 145Ind.Cas.258
Nanavati, J.1. Applicants ask for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decree of this Court for a sum of Rs. 32,791-15-6. This Court reversed the decree of the original Court, and prima facie leave would be granted as a matter of course. But Mr. Desai for the repondent has objected to the grant of leave, on the ground that on January 14, 1931, this Court passed an order, which he contends was a final order under Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, against which the applicant was bound to appeal, and that he not having done so, is now barred by limitation from challenging that order. He urges that the points taken in the memorandum of appeal are all directed against the finding reached in the order of January 14, 1931, and he therefore contends that such an appeal is now barred. The judgment of this Court of January 14, 1931, is headed 'Interlocutory Judgment.' It set aside the conclusion of the trial Court that the defendants-lessors were under no liability to repla...
Tag this Judgment!Narbheram Jivram Purohit Vs. Jevallabh Harjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom469; (1933)35BOMLR998; 147Ind.Cas.362
B.J. Wadia, J.1. One Hirabai widow of Madhavji Makanji died at Bombay on or about January 1, 1932, leaving a will dated December 20, 1931, of which the defendant is the executor. Defendant applied to this Court for probate on July 12, 1932, and probate was granted to him on August 5, 1932. The plaintiffs say that they are the sons of a cousin of the deceased and claim to be her heirs. On August 20, they filed this suit praying for a declaration that they are the heirs of the deceased Hirabai, that the will is not her valid and lawful will, that the grant of probate may be revoked, and that it may be declared that the plaintiffs as heirs of the deceased are entitled to the estate left by her and that the same may be handed over to them, and for other reliefs. On August 22, 1932, the plaintiffs took out a notice of motion for an order revoking the grant of probate and for appointment of a receiver and for injunction. In the argument a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Satar Suleman Haji Ahmed Vs. the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom87; (1933)35BOMLR18
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania, given upon an originating summons, which, raises the question, whether a deed of wakf dated March 9, 1923, is void according to Muhammadan law.2. The original plaintiff was one Abdul Satar Suloman Haji Ahmed, and the defendants were the Advocate General of Bombay, representing charity, and the trustees of the deed of wakf. Before the summons was heard, it appeared that the original plaintiff had really no interest in the property, and that the person primarily interested in maintaining that the deed of wakf was void was the second defendant. Accordingly the second defendant was made a plaintiff. But his name was loft on the record as a defendant also. That is wrong, and his name must be struck out, as a person cannot bo on both sides of the record at once. The third and fourth defendants are the other trustees of the deed.3. The deed of wakf, which is Ex. A, is dated March 9, 1923, and is made between Haji Ah...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Dandappa Manvi Vs. Gurpadappa Doddappa Hasibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom100; (1933)35BOMLR91
Murphy, J.1. This is a first appeal against an order in execution. What happened was that, in the first instance, a decree for Rs. 70,000 odd was made against the judgment-debtor on December 1, 1924. Subsequently, in an application for execution, the parties came to an arrangement or adjustment, by which the judgment-creditor agreed to receive Rs. 50,000 in lieu of Rs. 70,000 decreed him. Of this sum of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 40,000 were to be paid in cash on October 1, 1927, and the balance of Rs, 10,000 was payable in two equal instalments, the first being due on August 31, 1928, and the second on the corresponding date in the following year. It appears that the instalments were not paid, or fully paid, in accordance with the agreement, and the decree-holder consequently brought a second application for execution to recover the balance due under the agreement. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge's view, however, was that the decree in the suit had been adjusted by the agreement entere...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Meghaji Marwadi Vs. Amarchand Rajaram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom121; (1933)35BOMLR132
Nanavati, J.1. This is a second appeal from an appellate decree of the District Court of Poona reversing the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Poona in Civil Suit No. 413 of 1927. The plainttiff in that suit sued for partition of two houses mentioned in the plaint as being the mortgagee from defendant No. 1, who was a member of a joint family consisting of himself and his uncle defendant No. 6. The mortgage is of September 27, 1919, and purports to make over possession to the mortgagee, the mortgagor executing a rent-note in his favour. The appellants are original defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are in possession of one of the two houses in suit, house No. 45, having purchased the same in 1920 from the uncle of defendant No. 1, who was defendant No. 6. The principal contention on which this appeal turns was raised in issue No. 2 in the original Court, namely, whether the suit for partition was maintainable. It was contended that the plaintiff being the mortgagee from a co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »