Mumbai Court April 1934 Judgments
Muncherji Cursetji Khambata Vs. Jessie Grant Khambata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom5; (1934)36BOMLR1021
Blackwell, J.1. In this case the petitioner sues for a divorce by reason of the respondent's alleged adultery and cruelty. Among other defences, the respondent pleads that a previous marriage of the petitioner with one Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim has never been dissolved or annulled by any Court of competent jurisdiction and is still subsisting. The question, whether the first marriage had been validly dissolved before the marriage in suit took place, was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Chief Justice answered that issue in the affirmative, and this is an appeal from his decision.2. The issue was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. From this it appears that on December 4, 1906, the petitioner, who was domiciled in Scotland, married at the General Registry Office in Edinburgh Gulam Mahomed Ebrahim, who was a Sunni Mahomedan domiciled in India (which includes not only British India, but the various Native States). In 1912, the petitioner became a convert to the Mahomedan religion...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mahakore Vs. Bhikhabhai Sankalchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom28; (1934)36BOMLR1110
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which I am asked to interfere with an order made by the Joint Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad in which he gave leave to the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and to bring a fresh suit. The material facts are that the suit is brought by the plaintiffs as reversioners against the defendant as the widow of a deceased Hindu, and they ask for a declaration that the defendant had no right to alienate the property of her husband after her husband's death, and that the alienations which have been made are not binding on the plaintiffs as reversioners. On October 18, 1932, the plaintiff made an application for leave to amend the plaint by joining certain alienees from the widow, and that application was refused. Then on December 21,1932, the plaintiffs made an application to the lower Court for leave to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The reasons put forward were that they desired to make the alienees fro...
Tag this Judgment!Anglo-Indian Drug and Chemical Co. Vs. Swastik Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom101; (1934)36BOMLR1165; 155Ind.Cas.641
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiffs have been carrying on for a number of years past the business of manufacturing and selling drugs, patent medicines, hair oils, perfumery and toilet requisites in Bombay, and have filed this suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant company from selling its bar soap under the mark 'No. 777' which the plaintiffs claim as their trade-mark for their ' toilet preparations'. Prior to August 24, 1922, one Mulji Premji Rathod was the sole proprietor of the Kathiawar Trading Company and the Bombay Perfumery Manufacturing Company which was also carrying on business in Bombay. The Kathiawar Trading Company had been manufacturing for a number of years certain toilet preparations bearing the number '777' which Mulji Premji had declared to be his own trade-mark. On August 24, 1922, he sold both these concerns by a deed of conveyance for the consideration mentioned in the deed along with the goodwill, the stock-in-trade, and the right to the,; exclusive user of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Motichand Vs. Naranji Purshottam Sangani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom268; (1935)37BOMLR261; 157Ind.Cas.127
Blackwell, J.1. The plaintiff is a member of the Dasa Sorathia Bania caste in Bombay. He prays in this suit for a declaration that his excommunication from the caste is void. His main contentions are that the proceedings which resulted in his excommunication were contrary to natural justice in that the procedure laid down by the rules of the caste was not followed, that he committed no caste offence, that he received no notice of the charge or of the punishment proposed to be inflicted, that he received no notice of the caste meeting, that no notice was given to the members of the caste that a charge against the plaintiff which might result in his excommunication was to be dealt with at the meeting, and that there was no evidence before the caste upon which the caste could find him guilty.2. In order that the case may be understood, it will here be convenient to refer to some of the more material facts. One Sha. Bhurabhai Nathoo died several years ago leaving two sons Amratlal and Amic...
Tag this Judgment!Lukmanji KamruddIn Vs. Valibhai Karimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom306; (1934)36BOMLR649
Murphy, J.1. The petitioner seeks to have revised an order of the learned First Class Magistrate, Godhra, made on October 23, 1933, directing that process and a bailable warrant should issue against him, on the complaint of one Bohra Valibhai Karimbhai, of various offences under Sections 406, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The complainant's actual accusation against the applicant was, that applicant, being the receiver appointed by the Court in suit No. 6 of 1930 of the First Class Court at Nadiad, jointly with the Nazir of that Court, had committed these offences by falsely charging the cost of a second class ticket for the purpose of his journeys as receiver, whereas in fact he had travelled in the third class, and thus defrauded the estate, of which he was the receiver, of the difference between the cost of the tickets of those two classes.3. The main objection taken before the learned First Class Magistrate was that before cognizance could be taken the sanction of the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavdas Jethabhai Vs. Sitaram Ramnarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom402; (1934)36BOMLR941; 153Ind.Cas.959
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case certain Shah Jog hundis were drawn by a firm upon defendants No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. As is usual in the case of Shah Jog hundis, the hundis were not presented to the drawees for acceptance before payment. The hundis eventually came into the hands of defendants No. 2 who are admittedly Shahs, and were presented by them to defendants No. 1 for payment, and were duly paid. Subsequently, it was discovered that, owing to the dishonesty of a third party,, defendants No. 2 had no title to the hundis, since the indorsements under which they claimed had been forged. Thereupon, the plaintiffs, as the true owners of the hundis, sued defendants No. 1 as the drawees, and defendants No. 2 as the Shahs to whom payment had been made, for recovery of the amounts of the hundis, and judgment was given against both the defendants. Defendants No. 1 issued a third party notice against defendants No. 2 claiming indemnity against loss suffered by them through...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Khimchand A. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom303; (1934)36BOMLR639
Murphy, J.1. The appellant, Khimchand A. Mehta, has been convicted on three charges under Section 103 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, and has been sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges, the sentences to run concurrently. He has appealed against his convictions and sentences.2. The first point raised by Mr. Carden Noad is that his client has been improperly tried, because the charges framed against him are really two on each count, and amount to at least five, if not six, charges of separate offences.3. The prosecution story is as follows :Appellant was doing business in Bombay since before 1918, principally as an auctioneer, though he had several other branches which were sub-departments of it. He is said to have speculated and to have lost large sums, and since 1926, in any case, his business was carried on, more or less, on credit. Things went on in this fashion until February, 1929, when, on the application of a creditor to the Insolvency ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavdas Jethabhai Vs. Devidas Vardasa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom400; (1934)36BOMLR929; 152Ind.Cas.609
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania, and it raises an interesting point as to the liability of the drawee upon a Shah Jog hundi. The facts, so far as this appeal is concerned, are not in dispute. On March 16, 1927, a firm called Premraj 'Panalal drew upon defendants No. 1 certain hundis in favour of the plaintiffs, the direction in the hundis being to pay the amount of the hundis to a Shah. The hundis were sent by the plaintiffs to a firm called Ramkaran Ramnath up-country, and in the course of post they were stolen. Subsequently, an indorsement by Ramkaran Ramnath in favour of one Umarsaheb, who was presumably the thief, was forged on the hundis. They were then presented by Umarsaheb to defendants No. 2 in Bombay, and defendants No. 2, who are admittedly Shahs, obtained payments of the hundis from defendants No. 1 as the drawees. The plaintiffs as owners of the hundis sue in this suit both defendants No. 1, as drawees, and defendants No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Balmukund Jagjivan Gujarathi Vs. the Collector Ahmednagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom25; (1934)36BOMLR1103
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a civil revision application. It arises in these circumstances. In the year 1916 certain immoveable property was mortgaged to the applicant to secure Rs. 1,000, and in 1924 the applicant filed a suit to enforce his mortgage against the sons and grandsons of the mortgagor, who had died. On June 7, 1926, there was a mortgage decree, under which the mortgagee was to recover a sum of Rs. 1,751 with interest by sale of the mortgaged property, and if the mortgaged property was not sufficient, he was to have a right of recourse against other property of the mortgagor. In 1931 the mortgagee filed a darkhast for sale, and two of the mortgaged properties were sold for a sum of Rs. 2,586, which was rather more than the amount of the debt and interest. In February, 1933, the local Government Pleader wrote to the Subordinate Judge in whose Court the darkhast proceedings were, asking that the proceeds of sale of this property should be sent to the Collector of Ahme...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabram Purshottam Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom21; (1934)36BOMLR1106
Broomfield, J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether a plaintiff, who has given a notice, under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, with a view to a suit against the Secretary of State for India and has instituted a suit before the expiry of the two months prescribed in the section and has been permitted to withdraw that suit with liberty to institute a fresh one, is entitled to institute that fresh suit without a fresh notice.2. For the purposes of this appeal the facts may be stated very briefly. The plaintiff-appellant served a notice on the Secretary of State on September 21, 1927, and less than two months from that date he filed a suit for a declaration of his rights in respect of certain property and for various injunctions. That was suit No. 1121 of 1927. Coming to understand that this suit was bound to fail as being premature, the plaintiff obtained the leave of the Court to withdraw it under Order XXIII, Rule 1, of the Code, with liberty to file a fres...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »