Mumbai Court March 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.
Mahomedbhai SamsuddIn Jivaji Raja Vohra Vs. M.A. Dawoodbhai and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom405; (1938)40BOMLR676
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Engineer, which raises a short question in execution. On August 11, 1932, judgment was obtained by the present respondents against the appellant and two others, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad, and on July 25, 1934, that decree was transferred to this High Court for execution. On April 21, 1937, an application was made by the respondents to execute the decree under Order XXI, Rule 11, But the application was defective in that it did not specify the property which was to be attached, as it should have done under Order XXI, Rule 13. All that appears in column J, the heading of which is, ' The mode in which the assistance of the Court is required ', are the words, ' By attachment under Order XXI, Rule 54, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and issuing notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the said Code.' With nothing more to go upon it would have been impossible for the Court to execute th...
The Calico Printers Association Limited Vs. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom413; (1938)40BOMLR661
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Somjee which raises a pure point of law.2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a design registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1911, which is for use on textile goods. The design was registered on April 2, 1936, and accordingly, under Section 47 of the Act, the plaintiffs have copyright in the design for five years from that date. 3. A firm of merchants in Bombay called M.S. Mustak & Co. admittedly handed over to the defendants, who are a Japanese firm with an office in Bombay, a design which infringed the plaintiffs' copyright. The object of Mustaks was to have the design placed on textile goods which were to be imported by the defendants from Japan and sold to Mustaks.4. The contract between Mustaks and the defendants, which is exhibit C, makes it clear that they were contracting as principals, that is to say, aa buyers and sellers. Under the contr...
Nippon Yusen Kaisha Vs. Ramjiban Serowgee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR799
Wright, J.1. The appellants in this appeal, a Japanese ship-owning company, have been held liable to pay to the respondents, who are brokers and merchants at Calcutta, damages representing the value of certain consignments of jute gunny bags. Before explaining the issues in the case it will be convenient to state in briefest possible outline the material facts and documents.2. On May 4, 1926, the respondents entered into three contracts with three mills respectively for the purchase of a total quantity of 250 bales. On the same day they sold the same quantity1 of 250 bales to a company called the International Export Company, Limited, carrying on business in Calcutta, who will be referred to as the export company. The conditions of all the contracts were identical, the form used being the ordinary form approved by the Indian Jute Manufacturers Association. This is the form under which the entire export business in gunnies in Calcutta is conducted. Clauses 3 and 4 of the terms and condi...
Chimanlal Girdhar Ghanchi Vs. Dahyabhai Nathubhai Ghanchi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom422; (1938)40BOMLR952
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application to review a decree of this Court in Appeal No. 2 of 1935 from Order. It was an appeal from an order of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad directing an award to be filed and made a decree of Court. Several points were argued in the appeal, the principal one being whether the arbitrator was given authority to deal with the properties moveable and immoveable which were the subject of the award. It was not brought to the notice of the Court however that the award has not been registered, and we can only suppose that the learned Counsel engaged in the appeal had not realised the significance of the fact. As the law now stands, an award comes under Section 17(1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, and when it purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immoveable property, it is compulsorily registrable. Awards were formerly e...
T.R. Pratt (Bombay) Limited Vs. M.T. Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1109
George Rankin, J.1. In this case two appeals have been consolidated. They arise out of proceedings taken in the winding-up of a company called T. R. Pratt (Bombay), Limited, (herein called ' Pratts '), which was registered in 1919 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.. On June 22, 1932, it was ordered by the High Court of Bombay to be wound up. The order appealed from is dated September 18, 1935, and was made by a division bench on appeal from Kania J. It dealt with two separate but inter-related claims against Pratts -one preferred by E. D. Sassoon & Company, Limited, and the other by M. T. Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The claim of the former (herein called 'the Sassoon company') was to be a secured creditor of Pratts for Rs. 4,91,284 by virtue of an equitable mortgage evidenced by an indenture dated February 28, 1928, and confirmed by another indenture dated August 11, 1931. The claim of M. T. Limited was intended as an alternative to the claim of the Sassoon company : it was ...
Asman Vaman Yadav Vs. Ganpat Tukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom443; (1938)40BOMLR946
Broomfield, J.1. These are cross appeals arising in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that certain mortgage deeds executed by their father, defendant No. 2, in favour of defendant No. 1 on December 22, 1913, February 2, 1915, February 3, 1915, and February 9, 1920, and' a decree obtained in a suit of 1924 on the strength of these mortgages are not binding on the plaintiffs' share in the properties mortgaged, and also for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from executing the decree.2. Defendant No. 2, who, as I say, is the father of the plaintiffs, was apparently in the days of his youth an extravagant man addicted to drinking and other vicious practices. The mortgage deeds were in the form of sale-deeds, but when the creditor defendant No. 1 sued for possession of the lands covered by them defendant No. 2 contended that they were really mortgages. That contention was accepted and he was allowed to redeem. On October 21, 1925, a decree was made against him for th...
Maria Flaviana Almeida Vs. Ramchandra Santuram Asavle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom408; (1938)40BOMLR658
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Engineer given in chambers, by which he set aside an abatement.2. The material facts are that the plaint in the suit was declared on June 10, 1936, and the claim as against defendant No. 1 was for payment of a certain share of costs incurred in a suit for which the plaintiffs allege defendant No. 1 was liable to them. Defendant No. 1 died on January 30, 1937, and the plaintiffs were informed of that fact on February 8. They then had ninety days in which to bring the heirs on record under Article 177 of the Indian Limitation Act, and they did not in fact bring the heirs on record within that time. That being so, under Order XXII, Rule 4, the suit abated.3. By Rule 9(1) it is provided that where a suit abates or is dismissed under this Order, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action. Sub-rule (2) provides that if it is proved that the plaintiff was prevented by any sufficient cause from bringing...
Menahem Mesha Menahem Messa Vs. Moses BunIn Menahem Messa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom394; (1938)40BOMLR571
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Rangne-kar. The suit was originally transferred from Aden, where the deceased testator was domiciled. So that the suit is heard by this Court as the Court which at the date of the suit had jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Aden.2. The plaintiff is the only son and heir of one Bunin Menahem Mesha, who died on October 12, 1922, domiciled in Aden. The deceased left a will dated July 10, 1919, which is exhibit C, and the plaintiff sues in this suit for a declaration that that will is not the last will of Bunin, that the plaintiff is entitled to the whole estate as heir, that he is also entitled to a grant of letters of administration, and he further asks for administration. The Judge held that exhibit C was not the last will of Bunin, and decreed the plaintiff's suit, and from that decree this appeal is brought.3. Appellant No. 1 has died, and his name has been ordered to be struck out; appellants Nos. 4 and 5 at...
Amritlal Raichand Jhaveri Vs. Bhagwandas Fatehchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom435; (1939)41BOMLR609
Kania, J.1. This case, which involves a sum of three thousand rupees only, has been contested as a test case to determine certain points in the diamond trade in Bombay. Plaintiffs, a firm dealing in diamonds, handed over to defendant No. 1 173 diamonds on or about November 8, 1934, on terms signed by him in the plaintiffs' book. That document runs in the following terms:To.Zaveri Amritlal Raichand,Bombay, 8-11-1934.Written by Shah Fatehchand Lallubhai.I have this day received from you the goods specified below, for the below-stated purposes and on the below-stated conditions.1. The goods have been entrusted to me for the sole purpose of being: shown to the intending purchasers.2. The ownership of the goods is of you alone and I have no right to or interest in them.3. I have no authority whatever to sell, mortgage the goods or to deal with them otherwise.4. I am bound to return the goods whenever you make a demand for their return,5. I am responsible for the return of the goods to you i...
Babasaheb Appasaheb Sirnadgouda Vs. Laxmanappa Ramappa Kallimani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom492; (1938)40BOMLR1015
Broomfield, J.1. We are concerned here with a batch of four second appeals arising out of suits brought by an inamdar of the villages of Honnihal, Chavadapur and Mudavinkop in the Bijapur district to evict persons in possession of the lands in these three villages, who, he alleges, are his annual tenants. The lands in question are paragana watan lands.2. The contentions in the written statements of the defendants were that the plaintiff is not the owner of the soil but merely entitled to receive the revenue of the lands, that the defendants are not annual tenants, that legal notice was not given, that the defendants are mirashi khata tenants and have acquired rights similar to those of occupancy tenants in British villages, that they have not been paying rent but assessment as enhanced from time to time in accordance with the custom, and that the plaintiff's claim to recover possession is barred by adverse possession. The tenure claimed by the defendants is explained in paragraphs 6 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »