Mumbai Court February 1936 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.
The Indian Cotton Company Limited Vs. Huri Poonjoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom39; (1936)38BOMLR1222; 166Ind.Cas.974
Kania, J.1. Plaintiffs are merchants dealing in cotton and also act as pucca adatiyas. Defendants are members of a joint Hindu family and carry on business in the joint family firm name of Balkrishna Poonjoo Mali. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the managers of the joint family. For several years before 1933 the defendants had employed the plaintiffs as their adatiyas in respect of their dealings in cotton in Bombay. The business was on the usual terms and interest was agreed to be paid at seven and a half per cent, per annum. Defendants consigned to the plaintiffs cotton bales for sale and against the same the plaintiffs advanced money from time to time. The market price of cotton went down and the plaintiffs demanded margin from the defendants. In September, 1931, fifty bales of the defendants were lying with the plaintiffs unsold.2. On August 31, 1931, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs a letter in which they offered to send promissory notes and debt bonds as margin. By their reply o...
Emperor Vs. Rackappa Yellappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR440
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar, and the question is whether a prosecution can be proceeded with without the sanction of a Court under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The material facts are that on January 3, 1927, a mortgage of certain immovable property was executed, which mortgage was subsequently transferred to the present complainants. On February 11, 1935, accused No. 1 took the mortgage deed from the father of the complainants, in whose custody it was, and it is alleged that accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, who is the second mortgagee of the property, subsequently forged an endorsement of satisfaction on the mortgage. The other accused are alleged to have either written the forged endorsement, or attested it, and so to have abetted the offence of forgery. On February 16, 1935, accused No. 2 made an application to the City Survey Officer, Gadag, to substitute his name as a mortgagee of the property in place of the n...
In Re: Fazalbhai Mills Limited (In Liquidation)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom296; (1936)38BOMLR541
Kania, J.1. These proceedings arise from the report of the liquidator to settle the list of creditors. In the liquidation proceedings claimants 1 to 80, 189, 190 and 191 claim that, because they were members of the provident fund, founded by the company, they were preferential creditors and entitled to rank as such in the winding up of the company. All these persons were the employees of the company. In the claims filed by them fifty-nine claimed priority from the commencement, two claimed priority subsequently by giving notice, while twenty-two have not claimed priority in express terms. In my opinion justice requires that the rights of all the parties should, however, be determined irrespective of this consideration.2. The first point which arises for consideration is, whether the company was a trustee in respect of the amount standing to the credit of the employees, who were members of the provident fund, or at any rate occupied a fiduciary relationship towards them. It is common gr...
Emperor Vs. Rachappa Yellapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom221; 163Ind.Cas.279
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar, and the question is whether a prosecution can be proceeded with without the sanction of a Court under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. The material facts are that on January 3, 1927, a mortgage of certain immovable property was executed, which mortgage was subsequently transferred to the present complainants. On February 11, 1935, accused No. 1 took the mortgage deed from the father of the complainants, in whose custody it was, and it is alleged that accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 who is the second mortgagee of the property, subsequently forged an endorsement of satisfaction on the mortgage. The other accused are alleged to have either written the forged endorsement, or attested it and so to have abetted the offence of forgery.2. On February 16, 1935, accused No. 2 made an application to the City Survey Officer, Gadag, to substitute his name as a mortgagee of the property in place of the name of the compl...
Bai Sakar Vs. Ismail Gafoor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom65; (1936)38BOMLR1034
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal depends upon the system of law in accordance with which property owned by members of a Sunni Bohra family of Vallasan, in the Borsad taluka, must be deemed to have devolved on their deaths.2. The material facts are that one Gafoor Kasim, a Sunni Bohra of Vallasan, in the Borsad taluka, died in February, 1922, at Petlad, leaving him surviving (1) a widow who was plaintiff No. 1 in the suit, and is now appellant No. 1; (2) a son by his first wife defendant No, 1, the first and the only active respondent; and (3) a son by his second wife, viz., Ibrahim who was at the time of Gafoor Kasim's death eight years old and who died in June, 1923, about sixteen months after the death of his father; (4) a posthumous daughter, plaintiff No. 2, now appellant No. 2, was born to Gaffoor Kasim. Defendant No. 2 to the suit was a surety for the due administration of the estate. He was a formal party and his name has been struck off. He need not be referred to any further. I will, ...
Louis Dreyfus and Co. Vs. Basappa Lingappa Bagur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom401; (1936)38BOMLR607; 166Ind.Cas.35
Divatia, J.1. This application has been preferred by the original plaintiffs against an order by the District Judge in appeal, dismissing the plaintiffs' application in the nature of a suit to pass a decree in terms of an award.2. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase groundnuts from the defendants and entered into an agreement with them. One of the terms of the agreement was that in case of any dispute whatsoever arising under the contract the same shall be referred to two Europeans of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, one to be nominated by each party. If any party failed to nominate an arbitrator within seven days from the date of the request by the other, the other party had the right to nominate both. In case the arbitrators did not agree they would appoint an umpire who must be an European member of the Chamber of Commerce. If the arbitrators did not agree as to the choice of the umpire within three days, the chairman of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce or the gentleman acting for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›