Mumbai Court October 1937 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.
Achut Dadaji Joshi Vs. Parsharam Vasudev Mogre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom281; (1938)40BOMLR377
Barlee, J.1. The suit was filed by Parsharam Vasudev Mogre on a promissory note executed on October 7, 1921, by the deceased father of the defendants-appellants Dadaji Ramchandra Joshi. He died on September 17, 1923, and on November 28, 1924, his widow made a payment of a hundred rupees in part payment of the debt. On November 10, 1927, she acknowledged that a certain amount was dueon the promissory note and on October 16, 1930, that is about a month before the expiry of the period of limitation, Mogre filed a suit in this Court on the promissory note. On February 25, 1931, however, he made an application for leave to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, and for permission to file a fresh suit, and the leave was granted by an order of the Court on the same date. Thereafter on March 24, 1931, he filed a suit on the promissory note in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Andheri. The only issue with which we are now concerned was whether...
Pandu Narayan Nhavi Vs. AmiruddIn Shekh Abdulla Sarkhot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom329; (1938)40BOMLR407
Rangnekar, J.1. These are three appeals which arise out of three suits brought by the plaintiff to recover the amount of khoti dhara and khoti faida in kind for the years 1929-30 and 1930-31. The suits apparently were tried together and by consent of parties all evidence was recorded in Suit No. 601 of 1932, and it is agreed that the decision in appeal No. 133 of 1934 would govern the other two appeals.2. The facts are, that Shirkes were the original knots of the village Medhegaon, District Kolaba. That village is what is called a kabulayat village. The plaintiff and his co-sharer khots purchased the khoti takshim belonging to the Shirkes by al registered sale-deed on February 9, 1924 (exhibit 35), and these suits were instituted by the plaintiff as the managing khot of the village. The claim as to the dhara was not disputed. The claim as to the faida for the years 1929-30 is now given up by the plaintiff, and the only question which arises in this appeal, and which was raised in the l...
Chunilal Mayachand Vs. E.E. Millard
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom278; (1938)40BOMLR252
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Engineer, and the only question is whether leave to sue should be given under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground that the cause of action or part of the cause of action accrued in Bombay.2. The suit is a suit on a promissory note payable on demand. The note so far as is material is in these terms :-On demand I promise to pay to Messrs. Chunilal Khupchand & Co., or order the sum of Rupees one thousand only (Rs. 1000) with interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem for value received in cash. Money payable either in Poona, Bombay or elsewhere.It is dated January 28, 1937, and on July 28, 1937, the creditor, by his attorneys, gave notice to the debtor demanding payment to the plaintiff in Bombay at his residence at New Hanuman Lane, or at the attorneys' office, the office of the attorneys also being in Bombay. So that one has a demand for payment in Bombay and the plaintiff's contention is that cons...
Gopilal Ghasiram Vs. Koshalkishore Parasram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom224; (1938)40BOMLR256
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision given by Mr. Justice Engineer. It relates solely to costs. The plaint was filed as a short cause, and owing to the fact that the defendants, who are minors, were living outside the Bombay Presidency a good deal of out-of-pocket expenses were incurred in effecting service upon them. The learned Judge made an order that the defendants do pay Rs. 350 for the costs of this suit.2. Now the learned Judge had before him a list of the out-of-pocket expenses, which amounted to Rs. 330. Of that amount Rs. 240 represented Court-fees, and Rs. 90 represented fees to counsel for drawing the plaint and for appearance in Court, fees which do not seem unreasonable having regard to the complexity of the matter. Item 56 of the Table of Fees provides that costs for ex parte short causes, unless otherwise ordered, are to be a lump sum of Rs. 250. As the order shows the plaintiff claimed that the costs should be taxed. The learned Judge instead of...
Balaramcharya Swamiracharya Rajpurohit Vs. Chidambaragauda Ramchandrag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom320; (1938)40BOMLR416
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made to me by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, and the difficulty arises in this way. In a suit before the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar the learned Judge directed that the plaintiffs do recover mesne profits from the date of suit from the defendants. There was then an appeal to this Court, and the Court varied the decree in certain respects, but in the main confirmed it, and directed that the mesne profits be determined in execution. Under the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, Section 244, it was provided that the following questions shall be determined by (order of) the Court executing a decree and not by separate suit (namely) :-(a) questions regarding the amount of any mesne profits as to which the decree has directed inquiry ;(b) questions regarding the amount of any mesne profits or interest which the decree has made payable in respect of the subject-matter of a suit, between the date of its inst...
Somabhai Naranbhai Patel Vs. Kalyanbhai Kashibhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom286; (1938)40BOMLR174
Rangnekar, J.1. This case has been exhaustively argued by Mr. Thakor, but notwithstanding his argument, I am satisfied that the appeal must fail. The facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit to recover Rs. 500 and interest due thereon, alleging that he had lent that sum to the defendant, on April 25, 1931. The defendant, by his written statement, admitted that he had received from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 500 on the day in question. But he pleaded that that sum was paid to him in order to be paid over to a certain person on behalf of the plaintiff. He further pleaded that he had passed, at the time of the loan, a promissory note, and that the loan and the promissory note formed the same transaction and that the promissory note was not properly stamped. He contended that, under these circumstances, the promissory note was not admissible in evidence and the whole suit must fail. The trial Court disbelieved the defendant, as regards the first defence, on the merits, and held that t...
Balubhai Mohanlal Vs. Kalyanji Nichhabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom449; (1938)40BOMLR884
Rangnekar J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the receiver of the estate of one Mohanlal who had been adjudged insolvent on February 23, 1929, on his own application made on August 7, 1928. Theobject of the application was to set aside a partition of the joint family estate effected by Mohanlal and his four minor sons on January 4, 1927, under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge held that the onus of proving that the partition was not made in good faith, or that there was no consideration for it, was upon the receiver. He then considered the evidence led by the receiver on this point. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the receiver, one of them being the insolvent himself. The insolvent stated in his evidence that as he wanted to do satta business and had lost eight to ten thousand rupees and wanted money to do business, his wife and some of his relatives intervened in the matter in order to prevent him from...
GaneshnaraIn Onkarmal Vs. Raja Pratapgirji Narsingirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR33
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell sitting in bankruptcy. The facts as found by the learned Judge, which are not in dispute, are these. The debtor is not a British Indian subject, but is a subject of the Nizam of Hyderabad. He came to Bombay for the first time about 1926. Thereafter he used to come to and stay in Bombay from time to time at his bungalow 'Samudra Tarang' down to about the end of 1934. Since then he has lived at Hyderabad within the territories of the Nizam, and he has never again been to Bombay. His bungalow ' Samudra Tarang' was mortgaged, and in or about August, 1935, the mortgagees entered into and still are in possession. The debtor formerly had a residence known as ' Himat House', but that was at some date not now material settled in trust for his children. He has not within a year before the date of the presentation of the petition ordinarily resided or had a dwelling house within the limits of the ordinary origin...
British India General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Janardan Vishwanath Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom217; (1938)40BOMLR155
Norman, J.1. One Balkrishna was a passenger in a motor omnibus which had been obtained by its driver Tukaram from the General Motor Agency on hire-purchase. Due to the driver's negligence the omnibus overturned and Balkrishna received injuries from which he died. Balkrishna's legal representatives filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against Tukaram (defendant No. 1), the General Motor Agency (defendant No. 2) and the British India General Insurance Company (defendant No. 3) with which company the General Motor Agency had insured the omnibus. The trial Court awarded a decree for Rs. 1,500 against all the defendants. The insurance company appealed, but the decree was confirmed by the District Judge. The insurance company has now come in second appeal.2. The only point taken is that Balkrishna being a stranger to the contract of insurance could not sue the insurance company. It is not disputed that the general law is that a stranger to a contract cannot sue on it, though it 1st...
The Calico Printers Association, Limited Vs. Savani and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR45
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a certain design for printing saries. The certificate of registration of the design with a specimen print on a piece of voil is exhibit A. The design consists of a border and, what has been at this trial called, the body or the background of the sari. The design was registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) and therefore the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the use of the design for printing textile goods and selling the same in British India.2.The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants imported into Bombay ten cases of Japanese prints for sale in Bombay, the border of which is identical with or a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design and that the defendants applied the design to the goods contained in the ten cases without the licence or consent of the plaintiffs and were publishing or exposing or causing to be published or exposed for sale and selling the goods.3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »