Mumbai Court January 1938 Judgments
Lala Karam Chand Vs. Mian Mir Ahmad Aziz Ahmad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1053
George Lowndes, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellants in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Peshawar, claiming payment by the respondent, sued both as a firm and individually, of Rs. 27,867-8-0 with further interest until realisation.2. The foundation of the claim was alleged in the plaint to be a sitta or agreement for sale in the following terms :-That on the 5th of Asuj (a Hindu month) Sambat (Hindu era), 1986, corresponding to' 27th September, 1929, the parties entered into an agreement as given in the sitta (agreement to sell) (copy attached) through Sant Amir Chand, broker, as under :-'Sale to R.B.L. Karam Chand Jagat Ram of 200 boxes of tea to be imported from Shanghai. Tea to be sent for by the receiver (of money) himself. Receiver himself to be responsible for profit and loss. Interest at the rate of Rs. 11-4-0 p.a. Time ten months.3. This document in itself, the meaning of which is to say the least of it obscure, obviously la...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas Vishram Vs. Jagjivan Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom84; (1939)41BOMLR33
Blackwell, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover the sum of Rs. 3,750 the price of a decree alleged to have been bargained and sold by him to the defendant. In the alternative he claims a like sum as damages.2. The defence to the suit put shortly is that the agreement was a mere agreement to sell and not a sale out and out, that it was subject to an implied condition between the parties that the decree should remain capable of execution, and that before the agreement to sell matured into a sale the judgment-debtor became insolvent, and the basis of the agreement consequently fell through, and the parties were relieved from their respective obligations under the agreement.3. It is agreed between the parties that I should first decide whether the agreement was an out and out sale or an agreement to sell, and that the alternative claim for damages should stand over until after my decision on this question.4. The material facts may be briefly stated : On June 26, 1936, the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Narayan Kulkarni Vs. B.R. Jainapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom458; (1938)40BOMLR932
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur in darkhast proceedings. The decree sought to be enforced has attained the respectable age of sixteen years, having been passed on December 22, 1921. The original decree-holder died, and his son Shankargouda who claimed to be his heir was a minor, and was represented by the Nazir of the District Court. In 1933, Shankargouda, acting through the Nazir, filed a darkhast to execute the decree of 1921. In 1934, a third party filed a suit against Shankargouda claiming to be entitled to the estate of the decree-holder, including this particular decree. In that suit two receivers were appointed by the Court, one of the receivers being the Nazir of the District Court. The receivers then applied that they might be at liberty, on behalf of Shankargouda, to execute the decree, and that application seems to have led to some confusion of thought on the part of two learned First Class Su...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Hukumchand Gujar Vs. Madhav Dattatraya Kirpekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom461; (1938)40BOMLR929
Devatia, J.1. These appeals arise in execution proceedings and involve a common question of law. They are preferred by the judgment-debtor against an order directing that the decree should be executed against certain property over which a charge had been created by consent of parties. The question of law was whether the decree required registration. The judgment-debtor's contention was that the suit was to recover a specific amount of money and in that suit a consent decree was taken by which a charge was created over certain property, and that under Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Indian Registration Act the decree required to be registered inasmuch as exemption from registration was granted to decrees or orders of a Court except those which were expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which was the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding, and as the property charged was not the subject-matter of the suit, the decree creating a charge on it r...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shanmuga Rajeswara Sethupathi, Raja of Ramnad Vs. Chidambaram Chett ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR767
George Rankin, J.1. In this case three appeals have been consolidated : two of these relate to minor questions as to interest, but the main appeal [C.M.P. No. 4220 of 1928] raises questions of more importance. These arise out of a. mortgage suit brought on April 15, 1905, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. The appellant in the main appeal (herein called 'the appellant') is the grandson of the original mortgagor, whose eldest son, the appellant's father, was defendant No. 1 to the suit. This defendant died pending suit and the appellant now represents the mortgagor: on one point, to be mentioned later, he has independent interests of himself and of his father to defend. Respondents Nos. 8 to 11 are the contesting respondents to the main appeal. They are the representatives of the original plaintiff in the suit Subramanian Chettiar who had succeeded his father Ramanathan Chettiar the original mortgagee. The decree dated September 12, 1917, of the trial Judge was modified in...
Tag this Judgment!Chanbasappa Virappa Bolagondar Vs. Huchappa Parappa Bolagondar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom47; (1938)40BOMLR1185
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. The facts are simple. The plaintiff claims as the adopted son of one Parappa. Parappa had a brother who was defendant No. 3's father, and they, as descendants of Basappa, were members of a joint family with the descendants of Basappa's brother Veerappa. Parappa died in 1923, leaving a widow who is defendant No. 6. In 1932 there was a partition between defendant No. 3 and the other branch of the family, that is, Veerappa's descendants. Defendant No. 3 took half the property, and Veerappa's descendants took the other half. In 1933 Parappa's widow adopted the plaintiff.2. The question is what share (if any) in the family property the plaintiff' ia entitled to. The learned Judge held that he was entitled to one-fourth of the whole of the property which had been partitioned, except the houses. He held that the partition of the houses was fair, but that the partition of the rest of t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhoribhai Dadabhai Patel Vs. Pragdasji Bhagwandasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom471; (1938)40BOMLR1041
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the temple of Karunasagar at Sarsa in the Kaira district. The plaintiffs are persons claiming to be interested in the temple, being trustees appointed by the will of Bhagwandasji, the last Maharaj or Mahant of the temple who nominated defendant Pragdasji to succeed him. The plaintiffs seek to remove the defendant from the office of Mahant not on the basis of the will, though that gave the trustees power to remove the Mahant under certain circumstances, but under the provisions of the Code relating to public religious and charitable trusts. The reason given for this is that they seek reliefs such as accounts and the framing of a scheme which they could not get under the will. The defence inter alia is that the temple is a private one and that there is no trust for public purposes. The trial Court has decided this point in favour of the defendant on a preliminary issue and dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Maneklal Kalidas Sheth Vs. Shivlal Dayaram Luvar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom26; (1938)40BOMLR1169
Rangnekar J.1. The only question in this appeal is one of limitation, as we agree with the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad that on the merits there is no defence. The facts are these : On April 14, 1924, the appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 11,000 to Jamnadas and Ranchhod on a mortgage of their property. The mortgage bond provided that the loan was to be recovered out of the mortgaged property and the deficiency, if any, was to be made good by the mortgagors personally as well as out of their other property. In consideration of the loan made to the mortgagors the respondent stood surety for the repayment of the principal and interest under a shah jog chitti admittedly passed by him in favour of the appellant. The chitti was missing, but there is no doubt, as found by the Court below, that the respondent was to make good the amount which may remain unpaid by the mortgagors to the appellant with interest thereon. To protect himself the respondent obtained a mortgage fro...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ahmedalli Esufalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom282; (1938)40BOMLR322
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application in which the applicant complains of his conviction of an offence under Section 394 (1) (h) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. That section provides that except under, and in conformity with the terms and conditions of, a license granted by the Commissioner, no person shall keep, in or upon any premises, for sale or for other than domestic use, any article specified in Part III of Schedule M. Part III of Schedule M contains a list of articles, and merely from reading the list it is difficult to see what object the legislature had in mind in framing a list of such a heterogeneous character. The list includes firewood and also timber, and ' timber' is the material word for the purpose of this case. Looking; to the nature of the articles in Part III, Schedule M, and to the terms of Section 394, and particularly Section 394 (1) (d), which refers to carrying on of a trade or operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Eugene Miranda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom315; (1938)40BOMLR320; 175Ind.Cas.1001
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision asking us to revise the conviction of the applicant for an offence under Section 231 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. The notice served upon the applicant by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 231 requires him within fifteen days to connect the unconnected waste water of the nahanies and wasting places to the municipal storm water drain on Lady Jamshedji Road after obtaining necessary permit of the owners of the drain in Sorab Mill Lane. In my opinion that is not a sufficient notice to comply with Section 231. That section provides that :Where any premises are, in the opinion of the Commissioner, without sufficient means of effectual drainage and a municipal drain or some place legally set apart for the discharge is situated at a distance not exceeding one hundred feet from some part of the said premises, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of the said premises to make a dra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »