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.
The Secretary of State Vs. the Bank of India Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR868
Wright, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court in appeal at Bombay, which affirmed a judgment of B. J. Wadia J. as trial Judge. These judgments rejected the claim of the appellant to be indemnified by the respondents against a liability which he had incurred and been compelled to satisfy under the circumstances of the case which were shortly as follows. A lady named Gangabai was the indorsee and holder of a Government promissory note for Rs. 5,000. A broker named Acharya, having possession of the note on the lady's behalf, forged her indorsement to it in his favour and indorsed it for value to the respondents. The respondents, acting in good faith, applied to the Public Debt Office under the Indian Securities Act, 1920, to have a renewed promissory note payable to them issued in exchange for the note which the respondents gave up in exchange. The lady, becoming aware of the fraud practised by Acharya, and the dealing with her note on the part of the respondents and th...
Hiralal Laxmandas Marwadi Vs. Meghraj Bhickchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom433; (1938)40BOMLR937
Macklin, J.1. The questions for consideration in this appeal are (1) whether the learned Judge of the trial Court was right in awarding maintenance cut of the joint family estate to an illegitimate son of a member of the regenerate classes, the father having died in union and without leaving separate property and the plaintiff's mother not being a dasi within the meaning of the texts, and (2) whether he was right in fixing the rate of maintenance at an amount higher than what is required for the bare necessities of life. By a series of Magistrate's: orders the plaintiff had for a period of years received maintenance at a rate varying from Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 per month ; but not long after the death of his father he brought the present suit against his father's brother for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month out of the joint family property, and he has succeeded to the extent of Rs. 40 per month. The defendant comes in appeal and the plaintiff cross-objects to the reduction of his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›