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.
Nagasi Ukheda Gujjar Vs. Anandji Dharsi Gujjar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom445; (1933)35BOMLR952; 147Ind.Cas.770
Patkak, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for a declaration that he was the owner of the moveable property in suit and for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from recovering the property and for recovery of possession of the property or the price thereof from defendant No. 3 and defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. It appears that one Dharsee Thackersey Gujar died on November 13, 1915, leaving behind him a son, the plaintiff, a widow, Ratanbai or Bayabai, his mother and a daughter. He was possessed of moveable and immoveable properties and had considerable debts. He made a will, Exhibit 77, on November 18, 1915, bequeathing his property and appointing panchas. He directed that his moveable and immoveable property at Cutch Varadia should be enjoyed by his mother during her lifetime, and after her death his wife and son Anandji should enjoy this property, and that after referring to certain other properties, he directed as follows :-If in future Anandji, and my wife do not pull o...
Amulakchand Mewaram Vs. Babulal Kanalal Taliwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom304; (1933)35BOMLR569; 147Ind.Cas.786
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Mirza refusing leave to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by altering the name in which they sued. The suit was commenced in 1926, and the plaintiffs are described as Amulakchand Mewaram, a firm of merchants carrying on business at Kalbadevi Road outside the Fort of Bombay. It was very early appreciated that in fact that firm is not a partnership firm, but is the name of a joint Hindu family, in which, according to the evidence, there are three members, and it was proposed in 1926 that the plaint should be amended by substituting the names of the three members of the joint family for the name of the family firm as plaintiffs. The defendant was prepared to agree to that amendment, and the terms of a consent order were actually settled, but the defendant contended that he would be entitled to the costs of amending the written statement. That contention would seem to me to have been well-founded, but the plaintiffs objected ...
Hirjibhoy Behramji Warden Vs. Ratanbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom444; (1933)35BOMLR969
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Wadia, and the short point which arises is whether on a promissory note, Ex. A, the gentlemen who signed that note are personally liable or whether they are liable only as executors of their deceased father. It is not disputed that the father Behramji had given a promissory note for Rs. 17,000 to one Screwvala. Behramji died in 1924 and the present appellants are his executors. After his death Rs. 1,000 was paid off and two promissory notes of Rs. 8,000 each were given to secure the balance of the, debt. That was in 1926, On January 29, 1929, the promissory note in suit was given by way of renewal of one of those promissory notes for Rs. 8,000 and it is clear that the consideration to be implied would be the giving of time. Indeed on the plaintiff's own evidence that was in fact the consideration. Now, the promissory note is in these terms. It is headed 'Estate of late Mr. Behramji H. Warden' and then it says :-We, ...
In Re: Goolbai Bomanji Petit.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom309; (1933)35BOMLR546; 145Ind.Cas.648
Beaumont, C.J.1. These are two appeals from orders made by Mr. Justice Wadia sitting in insolvency. The orders were made in the insolvency of one Goolbai for the examination of the respondents on the two appeals, who are respectively the son and daughter of Goolbai. The appellants, the Bank of India, Limited, obtained a decree far Rs. 1,50,000 on January 31, 1931, against Goolbai. They presented a petition on August 31, 1931, for getting her adjudicated insolvent, and on February 16, 1932, Goolbai was adjudicated insolvent. The evidence filed on behalf of the bank discloses various dealings between the insolvent and her son and daughter into which it is not necessary that I should go in detail. It is sufficient to say that the transactions are of such a nature that on the face of them they may be open to attack in the insolvency of Goolbai. That being so, the bank made an application for the examination of the son and daughter, that is to say, the two respondents, under Section 36 of P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›