Mumbai Court September 1940 Judgments
Chitnis and Kanga Vs. Wamanrao S. Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom99; (1941)43BOMLR76
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Somjee setting aside an order made by the Prothonotary for taxation. The learned Judge gave no judgment and therefore we do not know on what view his decision was based.2. The order made by the Prothonotary was the common form order for taxation of a bill of costs of Messrs. Chitnis and Kanga in relation to certain matters, one of which was an appeal on the appellate side of the High Court. An order for taxation on the original side cannot be made in respect of costs incurred on the appellate side of the High Court, and as to this item, admittedly the order to tax was wrong.3. The solicitors' case is that they were employed by the client and his father in connection with probate proceedings in the Satara District Court, and in those proceedings they filed a formal retainer. They did a certain amount of work in that case partly as attorneys and partly as pleaders, although a pleader was employed to argue the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vishnu Tatyaba Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1193
Wassoodew, J.1. The petitioners Vishnu Tatyaba Naik and Shridhar Raoji Patil, who were respectively Sub-Overseer of the District Local Board, Nasik, and elected member of that Board and Chairman of the Works Committee, were prosecuted before the Resident First Class Magistrate of Manmad in the Nasik District for offences of cheating and falsification of accounts and abetment thereof, punishable under Section s 420 and 477A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused had dishonestly taken false measurements of certain work of repairs on the KherdisathaNagarsul Road in the Yeola Taluka under their charge and fraudulently obtained from the President of the District Local Board Rs. 275-7-0 by tendering a bill with the measurement sheet containing the false measurements attached to it duly signed by accused No. 1 and countersigned by accused No. 2.2. The accused raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to try them on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Ratilal Tribhovandas Thakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom108; (1941)43BOMLR53
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B.J. Wadia. The plaintiff, who is a broker in Bombay, sued the three defendants for the amount of losses incurred in dealings in cotton on the New York Exchange during the year 1935. He sued defendant No. 1 as the principal debtor, defendant No. 2 as a surety, and defendant No. 3 apparently as having entered into the contract of suretyship on behalf of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is a company, which has existed for some time, and defendant No. 3 is the sole proprietor of the firm of the managing agents of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is a company, which had been formed shortly before the date of the present transactions, and defendant No. 3 was one of its directors. In 1935 the plaintiff, who had previously known defendant No. 3 and had done business for defendant No. 2, was asked to transfer defendant No. 2's account to defendant No. 1, and that he declined to do. He was distrustful of a new company o...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Saheb Ulfatrai Hukumchand Vs. Nagarmal Gopimal Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom211; (1941)43BOMLR269
Blackwell, J.1. The plaintiff, who carried on business at Delhi, employed. the defendants, who carry on business in Bombay, as his pakka adatias to effect for him forward transactions in gold, silver, cotton and linseed. Certain transactions were outstanding on October 5, 1939, and the plaintiff says that on that date the defendants wrongfully closed those transactions. He gave to the defendants instructions to close those transactions upon the footing that they were still outstanding on October 14, 1939, and says that if the defendants had carried out those instructions, as they were bound to do, a sum of Rs. 4225-10-9 would have been found due to him on taking the accounts between the parties. The defendants, on the other hand, say that they were entitled to close the outstanding transactions on October 5, 1939, and that, upon the footing that they were so entitled, a sum of Rs. 67-5-3 is payable to them by the plaintiff on taking the accounts on that day, and they counterclaim for t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dr. H.L. Batliwalla Sons and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR105
Broomfield, J.1. This revision application involves a question of the construction of Section 73(a) of the Indian Companies Act. The applicants are (1) Dr. H.L. Batliwalla Sons & Co., a limited company, which manufactures and sells a patent medicine called Batliwalla Ague Mixture, and (2) Kaikobad Cawashaw Batliwalla, who is one of the directors of this company. They have been prosecuted for an alleged contravention of Section 73(a) of the Indian Companies Act which requires that every limited company shall paint or affix, and keep painted or affixed, its name on the outside of every office or place in which its business is carried on, in a conspicuous position, in letters easily legible and in English characters. The complaint was that on the first three days of September, 1937, this company had not got its name painted or affixed outside its office or place of business as required by the section, and the learned Presidency Magistrate has found this proved as a fact and has convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Khimji Kuverji Shah Vs. Lalji Karamsi Raghavjl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom129; (1941)43BOMLR35
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B.J. Wadia. The plaintiff sued for damages for breach of a contract of marriage. There was also a claim against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for conspiracy, but as that claim was dismissed and as there is no appeal against that part of the decision, I need not refer to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 is the person who was to marry the plaintiff, and I will allude to him merely as 'the defendant.'2. The contract as pleaded was made in 1926 by the mother of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff with the defendant's) father on behalf of the defendant, and is alleged to have been ratified by the defendant. At the time of the contract the plaintiff was aged four years, and the defendant was nineteen. It is important to note that the defendant was of age at the time of the contract, because it is well settled that a guardian cannot enter into a personal contract imposing liability on a minor. (See Waghela Rajasanji...
Tag this Judgment!The General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd. Vs. Jan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR346
Engineer, J.1. This is a suit filed to enforce against the defendants, who are an insurance company, an administration bond which they joined the administratrix in giving to the Court for the due administration of the estate of Abdul Rahim Jaffer Allarakhia. The bond is put in action by the plaintiff to whom it was assigned under an order of the Court.The defences to the action are:(1) Limitation,(2) that the assignment of the bond is not valid,(3) that in fact the administratrix was not guilty of such devastavit as to make her liable to make good the loss, and that therefore the defendants are not liable, and(4) the defendants put the plaintiff to proof of the actual loss and damage sustained by the estate.2. As regards the points of limitation and validity of the assignment of the bond, it is contended on behalf of the defendants that Article 68 of the Indian Limitation Act governs the case, and that the breach of obligation of the bond occurred at the latest on the death of the admi...
Tag this Judgment!O.R.O.M. Sp. (Firm) Vs. Nagappa Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR440
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras on April 29, 1933, and is brought from the decree of an Appellate Bench dated May 9, 1938, reversing a decision of Lakshmana Rao J., dated March 27, 1936, whereby the suit had been dismissed. All the parties to the suit are Nattukottai Chettiars. The appellant is a firm which is known by the letters Order RM.O.M. SP., and which carries on business at Madras as bankers and money-lenders. It was defendant No. 1 to the suit and it will be conveniently referred to as the appellant bank. The plaintiff Nagappai and his younger brother Lakshmanan were the sons of one Minakshisundaram, whose brother Subrahmanyam, though not an original defendant, was added as defendant No. 2 to the suit by an order dated January 24, 1934. They were members of a joint Hindu family and had a family business in 'piece-goods' (cloth) at Madras and other places--the plaintiff's father's share being ten annas ...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Narandas Vs. Mahadeo Anandji Dhoria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom62; (1940)42BOMLR1078
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Somjee in insolvency adjudicating the appellant an insolvent, and, in my opinion, it is perfectly clear that the order ought not to have been made.2. The facts are these. The appellant and his wife in the year 1935 obtained an advance of Rs. 14,000 from the respondents on the security of ornaments belonging to the wife, and a promissory note was also given for the debt. It is said that in the year 1935 one of the pledged ornaments was sold for about Rs. 3,000. In 1936 there was a further promissory note for the amount then due, which was Rs. 11,840. Then it: is said that sometime after that another ornament was sold for Rs. 995. In 1939 the respondents as pledgees gave notice to the pledger that they intended to sell the pledged goods, and an arrangement was come to on January 5, 1939, by which the pledgees were to take over the remaining ornaments, and the pledger gave a promissory note for the balance. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Phylis Claire Carroll Vs. Charles James Carroll
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1083
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a preliminary objection is raised that I have no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit is one for dissolution of marriage by the wife of a domiciled Englishman, and is brought under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1926. The parties last resided together within the appellate jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, and the respondent still so resides, though the petitioner resides in Bombay. It is argued that in the circumstances it is only the Lahore High Court which can grant a decree of dissolution of marriage, since the High Court which has jurisdiction under the Act of 1926 should be held to be the High Court which would have jurisdiction under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 if the parties were domiciled in India.2. Under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 ' High Court' is defined by Section 3, but that definition has been altered by an Order in Council dated March 18, 1937, called the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian La...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »