Mumbai Court March 1933 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.
Narandas Sunderlal Rathi Vs. Ghanashyamdas B. Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom348; (1933)35BOMLR640; 147Ind.Cas.412
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Mirza. The plaintiffs are suing for moneys due in respect of certain teji mandi and mandi contracts made between themselves and the defendant. The nature of the contracts, which are contained in Exh. A, is not in dispute. On the dates upon which the options became exercisable, the defendant, against whom the options had gone, refused to sign the contracts for taking or giving delivery, that is to say, he refused to carry out the terms of the original bargain. The plaintiffs are members of the East India Cotton Association, Limited, and if they are to succeed in their claim, they must prove contracts which comply with by-law 82 of the Association. That by-law provides that 'Contracts between members acting as commission agents on the one hand and their constituents on the other shall be subject to the by-laws and shall be in writing in the form given in the appendix', and then it is provided, 'If a constituent of any such...
Sahebrao Narayanrao Deshmukh Vs. Jaiwantrao Yadaorao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR816
John Wallis, J.1. Their Lordships have heard arguments in two appeals from the Central Provinces arising out of two suits between the same parties and connected with the same watan or hereditary endowment and will now proceed to dispose of them together.2. The first of these appeals is from a judgment in second appeal of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in a suit filed in 1918 by the head of the junior branch of the watan family and his son to recover a one-half share of an annual payment of Rs. 768-8-0 made by Government to defendant No. 1 the head of the senior branch.3. The other appeal is from a judgment of the same Court on first appeal in a suit filed in 1924 by the head of the senior branch of the family to recover from the head of the junior branch possession with mesne profits of a one anna four pies share of the watan village of Lakhanwadi, of which it was alleged he had taken wrongful possession, In this case the Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge decree...
The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Moulvi Abdul Hayee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom437; (1933)35BOMLR946
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from a judgment of Mr. Justice Wadia. The point raised is a very short one, but not altogether free from difficulty.2. The insolvents were a firm called the White Kerosene & Mineral Oil Co., and before the insolvency they were minded to employ the present respondent Moulvi Abdul Hayee as a sub-agent on the terms of an agreement which was prepared in draft, under which the sub-agent was to pay Rs. 1,000 as deposit to be retained by the insolvent firm who were to pay interest on it. The respondent paid the thousand rupees before the agreement was executed, and in fact the agreement never was executed. The deposit of Rs. 1,000 was paid on June 25, 1930, and on April 24, 1931, the White Kerosene & Mineral Oil Company were adjudicated insolvents. In the meantime the respondent had started a suit in a Court at Karachi for the purpose of recovering his deposit, and on May 6, 1931, i.e., after the date of the insolvency, he ...
Ahmed Abdulla Moosa Vs. Cassum Ahmed Barwadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR827
Kania, J.1. This summons is taken out by the plaintiff asking for leave of the Court to revoke a consent decretal order of reference to arbitration made in this suit on, November 1, 1932. A preliminary objection to the summons is taken on behalf of the defendants that no such application lies. It is contended on behalf of. the defendants that the allegation of the plaintiff only amounts to an allegation of partiality on the part of one of the arbitrators, and nowhere in the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure it is provided that an application for revocation of the submission could be made on such a ground. It is urged that the only contingency of supersession of the arbitration before an award is made is contemplated and provided for in para. 5 of the second schedule to the Code. In this connection reliance is placed on para, 3 (2) which provides as follows:Where a matter is referred to arbitration, the Court shall not, save in the manner and to the extent provided in this ...
Emperor Vs. Ismail Sayadsaheb Mujawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom417; (1933)35BOMLR886
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty of any offence. The learned Judge had told the jury that it would be open to them to bring in a verdict of simple kidnapping under Section 363, but that in order to justify such a verdict they must be satisfied that the age of the girl kidnapped was under sixteen at the time of the offence. The learned Judge is of opinion that the verdict of the jury was wrong, and that the accused should have been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, and he has, therefore, referred the matter to us.2. If the learned Judge was right in charging the jury that they must be satisfied that the age of the girl at the time of the offence was under sixteen, it is, in my opinion, impossible to say that the verdict of the jur...
Karsondas Dhunjibhoy Vs. Surajbhan Ramrijpal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom450; (1933)35BOMLR929; 145Ind.Cas.630
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania. The plaintiff's are suing the defendants as their agents in respect of moneys due on account of various transactions of cotton, wheat, linseed, etc., in Bombay, for about two years up to October 20, 1922, and they ask for an account of those dealings and payment of the amount due to them. In the alternative, they ask for payment of Rs. 2,865 odd on an admission which is alleged to have been made by the defendants. The defence is that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation; and that being so, it is necessary to state the relevant dates.2. The first dealing between the parties took place on August 1, 1921. There was no general agency agreement, and I think that in law the defendants were appointed as agents for the plaintiffs in respect of each particular transaction committed to them. The last dealing between the parties took place on April 4, 1922, and, in my opinion, till about that date there was...
Liladhar Chatrabhuj Vs. Mathuradas Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom158; (1934)36BOMLR119; 150Ind.Cas.871
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 12,000 for brokerage alleged to be due to them for bringing about the sale of the defendant's property at Bund Gardens Road, Poona, formerly known as 'Maneck Park', to the Maharaja of Kolhapur for Rs. 6,00,000. Plaintiffs say that they were engaged as brokers in the transaction in or about July 1925, that the transaction of sale which was ultimately completed in or about June 1926, was brought about through their exertions, but that it was completed behind their backs, and that they are entitled to brokerage at two per cent. on the sale price. Defendant says that in or about May-June 1925, plaintiff No. 1 came and told him that the Maharaja of Kolhapur was a likely purchaser of this property, but he denies that he engaged the plaintiffs as his brokers to bring about the transaction, or that he agreed specifically to pay them brokerage at two per cent. According to his case the brokerage was to be paid to the...
Rasoolbibi Vs. Yusuf Ajam Piperdi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom324; (1933)35BOMLR643
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with the facts of the case, proceeded]. Mr. Tyabji has contended that the interest given to Hafizabibi in the immoveably property is in the nature of a usufructuary bequest; that the devise of the property is to Haji Ajam, the usufruct being bequeathed to Hafizabibi. In that way the devise and the bequest took effect simultaneously on the death of the testatrix. For this contention he has relied upon the Hedaya, Vol. IV, Ch. 5, p. 527, where it is stated:-If a person bequeath the service of his slave, or the use of his house, either for a definite or an indefinite period, such bequest is valid ; because as an endowment with usufruct, either gratuitous or for an equivalent, is valid during life, it is consequently so after death ; and also, because men have occasion to make bequests of this nature as well as bequests of actual property. So likewise, if a person bequeath the wages of his slave, or the rent of his house, for a definite or indefinite...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. T. Krishnaji Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR756
George Lowndes, J.1. On October 5, 1919, one T. Sivasankar Bhat, the father of the respondent, instructed his uncle Sadasiva Tawkar by letter to invest in his firm T.R. Tawker & Sons a sum of Rs. 10,000 lying with the firm, such investment to be made in the name of the respondent, who was then a minor, the money to be handed over to him on attaining twenty-one, and the interest in the meanwhile to be paid to the father. On October 22 following the firm gave him a receipt in the following terms :Received from Mr. T. Sivasankar Bhat, the sum of rupees ten thousand only through Mr. T. Sadasiva Tawker, as fixed deposit in the name of his minor son T. Krishnaji Bhat as per instructions contained in Mr. Sivasankar Bhat's letter, dated 5th instant, carrying interest at 9 per cent, per annum.Rs, 10,000.T.R. Tawker and Sons.2. The interest was duly paid to the end of 1923, when apparently the firm, which carried on business as jewellers in Madras, got into difficulties.3. On November 22, 1923, ...
Annacharya Sitaramacharya Jahagirdar Vs. Narayan Pandurang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom358; (1933)35BOMLR769; 145Ind.Cas.773
Baker, J.1. This appeal involves two questions of law one of which is of some importance.2. The plaintiff' obtained a decree against the defendants and in execution of that decree certain property was attached and put up for sale. Before the sale was confirmed the judgment-creditor and the judgment-debtors came to an arrangement and they made a joint application to the Court by which they asked that defendant No. 1 having agreed to pay the whole of the decretal amount together with interest and costs on or before December 29, 1930, the confirmation of the Court sale which took place on July 4, 1929, should be held over until December 29, 1930, in case the defendants paid up that day. If the defendants did not pay, the sale should be confirmed without further delay. The learned Subordinate Judge on this passed an order, dated February 20, 1930, which is set out in the judgment of the lower Court. The order is as follows :-Parties say that they have coma to a compromise understanding in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »