Mumbai Court December 1938 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.
Ajam Ibram Modan Vs. Bai Hava Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom485
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Surat reversing the preliminary decree passed by the Extra Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in a suit for administration and accounts on the ground that the decree was passed without jurisdiction. The appellant is the plaintiff in whose favour the decree was passed in the trial Court. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the First. Class Subordinate Judge of Surat. There was a Joint First Class Subordinate Judge attached to that Court, and the suit upon its registration was transferred to his Court on February 3, 1930. The Joint First Class Subordinate Judge framed issues on August 11, 1932, and ordered a commission to issue for the examination of certain witnesses on March 9, 1933. At that stage the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge withdrew the suit, and transferred it to the Court of the Extra Joint Second1 Class Subordinate Judge, who ultimately decided it three years thereafter on Jul...
Janardan Govind Gore Vs. the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom202; (1939)41BOMLR341
Blackwell, J.1. This is an originating summons which was brought by the plaintiffs, the proving executors of the will of one Dhundiraj Govind Gore, originally against the Advocate General of Bombay, to determine the meaning of the words 'my community' used by the testator in Clause 3(e) of his will, and whether the provision contained in that clause was intended to be for the benefit of the Dakshini Brahmin community as a whole or only for the Chitpavan sub-sect thereof.2. By an order dated July 27, 1938, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were added as parties to the suit on behalf of themselves and all other Chitpavan Brahmins who contend that the words 'my community' in the will mean the Chitpavan Brahmin community, and defendant No. 4 was added as a defendant on behalf of himself and other Chitpavan Brahmins who contend; that the words 'my community' mean the Dakshini Brahmin community.3. The material portions of the will are as follows:I, Dhundiraj Govind Gore of Mahim, Bombay, Chitpavan Bra...
Motilal Tribhovandas Choksey Vs. Shankarlal Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom345; (1939)41BOMLR536
Kania, J.1. This suit was originally filed as a summary suit in the name of the plaintiff as a firm, and a declaration as required by Order XXX, Rule 2(i), disclosing the names of six partners in the firm was also filed. Order XXX, Rule 2(3), provided as follows:Where the names of the partners are declared in the manner referred to in Sub-rule (2), the suit shall proceed in the same manner, and the same consequences in all respects shall follow, as if they had been named as plaintiffs in the plaint.The suit filed in that way was therefore a suit filed by the six persons against the defendant. Reading the plaint in that way, the cause of action was that the defendant had given instructions to the six plaintiffs to effect transactions on his behalf ; that they worked as his brokers, and as a result of carrying out his transactions the six plaintiffs had suffered a loss and they claimed the same from the defendant. As the defendant was a resident of Surat, it was alleged in the plaint tha...
Prahladrai Chooreewalla Vs. the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR684
Porter, J.1. The respondents in this case are the owners of certain plots of land at Grierson Road, Howrah. Before September, 1932, one Gobardhan Das Deora (hereinafter called Deora) was tenant of the plots on which certain structures had been erected. A draft lease had been sent to him but it was never executed. Deora failed to pay the rent for the land and a large amount became due from him to the respondents. It was accordingly arranged between Deora and the appellant that the appellant should purchase the structures, and between the respondents, Deora and the appellant, that the appellant should become tenant of the land and certain further land at an agreed rent. The terms of the arrangement will be found in a letter from, the respondents to the appellant's solicitors dated September 21, 1932.2. It was part of the terms agreed between Deora and the appellant that the appellant should take over and pay Deora for the structures on the land. This provision was duly carried out and fr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›