Mumbai Court February 1935 Judgments
Fanny Skinner Vs. the Bank of Upper India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR625
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, in a mortgagee Bank's suit to realise its security. In decreeing the suit the Court reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, who had dismissed it. The suit was commenced on December 8, 1923. The mortgage had been granted, on December 8, 1911, by a Mrs. Fanny Skinner, to the Bank of Upper India, Limited. The deed was in the ordinary form of a simple mortgage with a covenant on the part of the mortgagor for payment of the mortgage debt with compound interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum. In default of payment, the mortgagee Bank had the ordinary right of proceeding by Court sale to realise its security.2. The property comprised in the mortgage included, among other items, a one-eighth undivided share of the mortgagor in the village of Siswal and a one-tenth similar interest in the village of Badopal. The mortgagor's brother,. the second appellant, another brother and her sister were...
Tag this Judgment!H. Hunter Vs. Rani Kaniz Abid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR874
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. These are six consolidated appeals from decrees of the Chief Court of Oudh, Mr. H. Hunter is the liquidator of the Bank of Upper India, Limited, Lucknow, which is in liquidation, and for the sake of brevity he is hereinafter referred to as ' the liquidator.' The Bank appeals against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court, dated December 22, 1930. Rani Kaniz Abid is the beneficial owner of certain decrees obtained in respect of promissory notes executed by Chaudri Shafiz-uz-zaman, hereinafter called ' the insolvent' and she appeals against a decree of the Chief Court, dated October 15, 1929. Chaudhri Sharf-uz-zaman is the son of the insolvent, and K. B. Sheikh Matin-uz-zaman, Mohammed Wasim, Chaudri Hyder Husain, Chaudri Ehsan Husain are the trustees of a deed of trust executed by the insolvent and dated January 30, 1912. They are hereinafter referred to as 'the trustees'. The abovementioned Chaudri Sharf-uz-zaman and the trustees appeal against a decree of th...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhamgowda Basaprabhu Sardesai Vs. Jambhu Tavanappa Adake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom382; (1935)37BOMLR593; 159Ind.Cas.378
Barlee, J.1. The plaintiff, Lakhamgouda, sued to recover possession of certain lands from the defendants alleging that they were his tenants, arrears of rent and future mesne profits. The defence was that the defendants were holding the lands as tenants under a permanent lease. Two principal issues were raised, (1) Do defendants prove that they are entitled to hold the suit lands as the permanent tenants thereof on the strength of exhibit 61, and (2) whether they are entitled to the status of permanent tenants by adverse possession The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants were entitled to hold the suit lands as plaintiff's tenants on a fixed rent during the term of plaintiff's natural life only. In his opinion the document on which the defendants relied, exhibit 61, was not a permanent lease. But he held that the defendants had asserted their right to hold as permanent tenants in proceedings before the Revenue authorities in the year 1897, and had from that time been hold...
Tag this Judgment!Raoji Bapuji Pandarkar Vs. K.L. Bawachekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom316; (1935)37BOMLR478; 157Ind.Cas.680
Murphy, J.1. These are three second appeals, all made against orders of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur in the insolvency of Hirachand Gangaram of Pandharpur, and under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. This insolvent filed his petition on June 7, 1926, and was adjudicated on June 25, 1927. A pleader Mr. Bawachekar was appointed Receiver in the matter. In that character Mr. Bawachekar tried to obtain possession of a warehouse and its contents, which had belonged to the insolvent, and also of the insolvent's house. Objection to the Receiver's action was taken by Mangle-appellant in Appeal No. 686 of 1932. The objection was based on an allegation that the insolvent had sold him the warehouse on May 26, 1923.2. Another objector was Premchand, the insolvent's son. He claimed to have been given in adoption to another family, and that the greater part of the contents of the warehouses-including a quantity of ungianed cotton-was his, in the other family. He is not an a...
Tag this Judgment!Dawsons Bank Limited Vs. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha (Japan Cotton ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR544
Russell, J.1. The appellents are a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. They carry on the business of bankers in Burma through the head office at Pyapon and various branches, one of which was at Bogale. They may be conveniently referred to as the Bank. The respondents to the appeal are a trading company incorporated in Japan. They carry on business in Burma, and in the course thereof they purchase rice from paddy traders. They may be conveniently referred to as the Japanese company, or as the plaintiffs.2. In the neighbourhood of Bogale are to be found rice mills to which the traders bring their paddy for the purpose of having it milled. One of these mills, the Natchaungwa Mill, had been mortgaged by its owner to the Bank, and at -all times relevant to this appeal the Bank were mortgagees in possession of this mill and were milling paddy there for various paddy traders. For brevity's sake this mill will be referred to as the N. mill. It was managed by one Ba Maw...
Tag this Judgment!Poonamchand Pratapji Vs. Motilal Kapurchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom378; (1935)37BOMLR576; 158Ind.Cas.542
Tyabji, J. 1. This is a suit arising out of a partnership. The plaintiff was -adjudicated an insolvent on March 18, 1924. After the suit was brought the adjudication order was-on June 16, 1931-annulled.2. Several objections have been taken to the suit. I need only consider whether by reason of the insolvency of the plaintiff the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff.3. The Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, Section 17, provides that on the making of an order of adjudication, the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Official Assignee. It is admitted that this section does not apply to property that might accrue to, or to which the insolvent might become entitled, after the date of the adjudication. But the property of the insolvent divisible amongst the creditors under Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 52 comprises all such property as may be acquired by or devolve on him before his discharge. Thus the Official Assignee can. assert a right to property acquired by t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Papa Kamalkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR366
N.J. Wadia, J 1. [His Lordship, after narrating the facts of the case, proceeded :] We have to see what corroboration there is for the statement of Bapu Saheb that accused No. 1 actually took the money. It is true that Bapu Saheb must be treated as an accomplice, and so must Krishna, Dadu and Namu. But in cases of bribery the persons who pay the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about it. It is not possible to expect absolutely independent evidence about the payment of a bribe, and a distinction has to be made between persons who have voluntarily paid a bribe to a public servant in order to secure some advantage for themselves, and persons, such as Krishna, Dadu, and Namu in this case, who have been compelled by improper pressure put upon them by a public servant to pay a bribe. In cases of this kind, where the payment of the bribe has not been voluntary, very slight corroboration would, in my opinion, be suff...
Tag this Judgment!Nune Sivayya Vs. Maddu Ranganayakulu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR538
Thankerton, J.1. The facts appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Board. Dunne K. C. and Subba Rao, for the appellants. Upjohn K. C. and Narasimkam, for the respondents. Lord Thankerton. This is a consolidated appeal from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated September 22, 1927, which affirmed a judgment and two decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, dated March 31, 1923, and made in original suits Nos. 86 of 1919 and 83 of 1922.2. In original suit No. 86 of 1919, the appellants sue the respondent No. 1, in appeal No. 64 of 1930, and his minor son, to whom he is guardian ad litem, respondent No. 2 in said appeal, for damages for breach of contract in respect of five contracts of sale of bales of yarn made between August 10 and 19, 1918, and this suit has been dismissed by the Courts below.' In original suit No. 83 of 1922 the respondent No. 1 in the above appeal sues the appellants for an amount due in respect of goods suppli...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sakharam Rawaji Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR362; 157Ind.Cas.859
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused applies in revision against his conviction by the First Class Magistrate of Rahuri under Section 183 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction having been upheld by the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar, Section 183 provides that whoever offers any resistance to the taking of any property by the lawful authority of any public servant, knowing or having reason to believe that he is such public servant, shall be punished as therein provided. So that, in order to bring the section into operation, there must be resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant. The facts are that a man named Baban owned certain land in respect of which he was in arrear with 'his irrigation dues. He had sold the sugar-cane grown in that land to a man named Raichand, who had employed the accused to crush the sugar, and the jaggery was being removed in two carts, when it was attached by the Talati in respect of the irrigation dues in...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Keshavlal Vs. Ramchand Banarsidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR120
Divatia, J.1. This application in revision has been filed by opponent No. 1 who was alleged to be one of the partners in the firm of Messrs. Mangaldas Amratlal against whom a decree had been taken by the present opponent, i.e. the original plaintiff firm of Messrs. Ramchand Banarsidas. After the decree was passed against the firm of Messrs. Mangaldas Amratlal, the present opponent applied to the Court of the Presidency Small Causes Court at Bombay which had passed the decree to execute it against three persons, one of whom was the present petitioner, on the ground that they were all partners in the firm of Messrs. Mangaldas Amratlal. That application was made under Order XXI, Rule 50, of the Civil Procedure Code. All the three persons appeared and contended that they were not partners of the said firm. The learned Judge held that two of them were not partners, but the present petitioner was a partner as he had himself admitted to be such in the vakalatnama which he had signed. The lowe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »