Mumbai Court December 1942 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.
Raja Mohan Manucha Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1942
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR170
George Rankin, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit to enforce a registered mortgage dated August 12, 1919, whereby a village called Mahona Poorab in the District of Sultanpur in Oudh was made security for the sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest at nine per cent with half-yearly rests. The grantor of the mortgage was Iltifat Ahmad Khan, the defendants' father, and the grantee was the plaintiffs' father Moti Lal Manucha. The deed contained a personal covenant to pay the interest half-yearly and to re-pay the principal at the end of three years. The suit was brought in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Sultanpur on August 9, 1934, by which time both of the original parties to the deed ha died. The plaint sought relief, both by sale of the mortgaged property and by enforcement of the covenant. 2. The defendants by their written statement of November 30, 1934, maintained among other defences that the mortgage sued upon was void, having been made in circumstances which brought int...
M.R. Ved and Co. Vs. S.B. Hayeem
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom340; (1943)45BOMLR695
Chagla, J.1. This is a summary suit, and the question that arises is whether the defendant has been duly served. I have before me an affidavit of the special bailiff and also of a clerk in the employment of the plaintiffs' firm, and the two deponents depose that they went to the place of residence of the defendant and there served the writ of summons upon him by delivering and leaving with the defendant a duplicate writ of summons and also a copy of the plaint. Thereafter the special bailiff requested the defendant to sign an acknowledgment of such service on the original writ of summons, but the defendant refused to sign such acknowledgment. Thereupon the special bailiff requested the defendant to hand back to him the duplicate writ of summons and the copy plaint so as to enable the special bailiff to affix the same on a conspicuous part of the place of his residence, but the defendant refused to do so and ran away. As the special bailiff had no other copy of the summons with him, it ...
Mahalingayya Basappayya Ullagaddimath Vs. Sangayya Chennayya Ullagaddi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom397; (1943)45BOMLR773
Wassoodew, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit instituted by the plaintiff Sangayya Chennayya Ullagaddimath to recover possession with mesne profits, by partition, in his capacity as the adopted son of one Chennayya, of his share in the properties specified in the plaint, and for an account of the family business consisting of an arms and ammunition shop, The contesting defendants are Chennayya's brother Mahalingayya and the letter's son. The properties in dispute were at one time part of the joint family properties of one Chanbasappayya and his descendants. The relationship of the parties to the said Chanbasappayya will be apparent from the subjoined pedigree:- Chanbasappayya | ---------------------------------- | | Chanbasayya Basappayya | Gangadharayya (adopted son) ____________ | | Chandasayya Rajashekharayya (Deft. No. 3) (Deft. No. 4) ------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | | | Gangadharayya Chanayya=Basawwa Chanbasayya Mahalinga (Deft No. 1) | | | Sanga...
Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas Vs. the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR691
Chagla, J.1. The facts necessary to be stated for the determination of this preliminary issue are very short and simple. The first defendant company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1907. On December 7, 1907, it entered into an agreement with the firm of Kotibhaskar, Amin & Co, appointing the latter its secretaries, treasurers and agents. The plaintiff alleges that he became a partner in this firm on March 31, 1922, by virtue of an assignment executed in his favour by one Narandas Purshottam who had become a partner of the firm earlier. In October, 1939, the partners in the firm of Kotibhaskar, Amin & Co, were the plaintiff and one Bhailal D. Amin. On October 5, 1939, Bhailal D. Amin assigned his share in the firm to his son defendant No. 2, On November 20, 1939, the first defendant company wrote to the plaintiff stating that the managing agency agreement of December 7, 1907, had come to an end. The plaintiff alleges in his plaint that the firm of Kotibhaskar...
Abdul Rahman Syed Lal Vs. Aminabi Syed Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom409; (1943)45BOMLR768
John Beaumont, C.J.1. In this appeal from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar a preliminary point is taken by Mr. Shah for the appellants that, having regard to the terms of Order XXXIII, Rule 15, the suit does not lie.2. Rule 15 deals with the position arising when an application to sue as a pauper has been refused and subsequently a suit is filed on payment of court-fees. The rule is in these terms:-An order refusing to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature by him in respect of the same right to sue; but the applicant shall be at liberty to institute a suit in the ordinary manner in respect of such right, provided that he first pays the costs (if any) incurred by the Government and by the opposite party in opposing his application for leave to sue as a pauper.3. The material dates are that the pauper application was dismissed on August 7, 1937, and an order was made for payment of the costs of ...
W. Wilrow Vs. Mahadeo Govind Mehendale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom227; (1943)45BOMLR516
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 544 alleged to be due to him as rent under a lease which provided for rent to be paid at Rs. 40 per month. It appears that the defendant erected an oven in the house, and the lease contained a clause that in the event of the landlord demanding possession of the house the landlord should pay 'the cost of the built oven, namely Rs. 800 '. The defendant asks to be allowed to set-off the sum of Rs. 800 against the amount due for rent and asks that the suit should then be dismissed. He does not claim the surplus, and he says that he is entitled to a set-off without the payment of court fee. The Courts below are against him, and he comes in second appeal on the question of court-fee.2. His learned advocate admits that court-fee is payable on a legal set-off claimed in accordance with the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. That is clear from the Court-fees Act. He argues, however, that thi...
Pannaji Devichand Vs. Basappa Virappa Bellary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom243; (1943)45BOMLR510
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal arising in execution of a money decree. The original suit, No. 16 of 1927, was brought by the shop of Kapurji Magniram against the present appellants to recover a certain amount. The suit was decreed in the plaintiff's favour and the present appellants filed an appeal to the High Court which was First Appeal No. 136 of 1929. this Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court, and the appellants then applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The leave was granted and the appellants succeeded in their appeal. The decree of the High Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. During the pendency of the First Appeal in this Court, the plaintiff had filed Darkhast No. 30 of 1929 for executing the decree of the trial Court and had also recovered the decretal amount from the appellants. The appellants had applied to this Court for stay of execution, but the plaintiff was willing to furnish security, and it was therefore directed...
Philomena Mendoza Vs. Dara Nusserwanji Mistry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom338; (1943)45BOMLR687
Chagla, J.1. This is a pauper petition filed by the petitioner who alleges that she is the illegitimate child of the respondent and claims maintenance from him. The petition of the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis came on before the Prothonotary, and the Prothonotary feeling some doubt as to whether the petition disclosed any cause of action referred it to the Chamber Judge, Mr, Justice Kania rejected the petition under Order XXXIII, Rule 5(d), of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, holding that the allegations in the petition did not show a cause of action. From this decision of Mr. Justice Kania the petitioner appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the order of Mr. Justice Kania and held that the petition should be accepted assuming that pauperism is proved. In the judgment of the Appeal Court the learned Chief Justice stated that it was not an absurd application on the part of the petitioner if she could establish that she was the illegitimate child of the respondent. He went on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›