Mumbai Court August 1939 Judgments
Rajaram Jayaram Joshi Vs. Tanubai Dhondiba Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom63; (1939)41BOMLR1251
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal against a judgment of the Assistant Judge of Sholapur. The plaintiff is suing to redeem what is alleged to be a mortgage made in 1897, the suit having been filed in 1932.2. The document in question is in the form of a sale deed for Rs. 100, with the provision that in case 'I pay you back the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100 before the completion of twelve years from this day, then you should re-convey to me the aforesaid land.' The learned Judge held that that was a mortgage by way of conditional sale, and I quite agree with him. He has held as a fact that the consideration, viz. Rs. 100 received, was less than the value of the property ; the parties are referred to in the document as creditor and debtor, and the document states that the creditor has paid to the debtor Rs. 100, which does not suggest that the transaction was a sale. The redemption clause which I have read clearly brings the case within Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Hanutram Vs. Mohanlal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom93; (1939)41BOMLR1293
Kania, J.1. This is an application for stay under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The plaintiff alleges that he is a merchant carrying on business as a pucca adatya in diverse commodities in Bombay. Defendants, who are brokers in cotton, are members of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. The plaintiff is not a member. The terms on which the plaintiff employed the defendants as brokers are set out in para. 2 of the plaint. It is not suggested by any side that the terms of employment were in writing. Different transactions took place and disputes between the parties arose in respect of a sale of two lots of 1000 bales each on May 24 and a repurchase of the same 2000 bales. It is stated that the contracts were dated May 24 and 25. Several option transactions were also effected between the parties. On the contract notes sent in respect of the option transactions a slip was attached which stated that in the event of any dispute the same was to be referred according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. R.K. Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1227
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application from an order of the District Judge of Dharwar. The applicant was appointed Administrative Officer of the district local board of Dharwar, and it was part of his duty to inspect schools under the local board. He was entitled to draw travelling allowance under the Bombay Civil Service Regulations, and if in his travels he hired a motor car he was entitled to draw travelling allowance at the rate of four annas a mile, but if on the other hand he used; his own car the rate was only three annas a mile.2. The charge against him is that he delivered travelling bills claiming allowance at the rate of four annas a mile, that is in effect representing that he had travelled in a hired car, whereas in fact he had travelled in his own car. He is charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code with cheating by delivering a bill representing that he travelled in a hired car suppressing the fact that he had travelled in his own car.3. He cl...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sachidanand Vidya Narasinha Bharati Shankaracharya of Sankeshwar M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom112; (1939)41BOMLR1317
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits Nos. 291 of 1932, 667 of 1932 and 253 of 1934 which were filed by different plaintiffs against the same defendant, the Shankaracharya of the Sankeshwar Math.2. The contentions raised in suits Nos. 291 and 667 of 1932 were the same and both the suits were heard together and decided by the same judgment. The appeals against both these suits were also heard together by the Assistant Judge of Satara and decided by the same judgment. Suit No. 253 of 1934 was heard separately by another Subordinate Judge and the appeal against it was also decided by a different Judge. The result in all the three cases was the same. The plaintiffs' claims were decreed. Against the decisions of the Assistant Judge in suits Nos. 291 and 667 of 1932 second appeals were filed in this Court which were summarily dismissed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Macklin. Leave to appeal was subsequently given. All the three appeals involve the same question and hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›