Mumbai Court December 1952 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.
Ranchhoddas Khimji and Co. Vs. Karamsey Jethalal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom403; (1953)55BOMLR494
1. This is a suit by a firm against another firm claiming a money decree. One Khimji Motiohai was at all material times a partner of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. This fact is admitted, and the two issues that have been raised and which I have decided to try as preliminary issues are: '1. Whether there, are common partners in theplaintiffs and defendants firms? 2. If so, whether the suit is maintainable?' 2. The first issue by an agreement of parties will be answered in the affirmative as Khimji Motibhai was admittedly a partner or both the firms at the relevant time.3. The question, therefore, for me to determine is whether there can be a suit by one firm against another when there is a common partner. On behalf of the plaintiffs reliance is placed on Order 30, Rule 9, Civil P. C., which is in these terms:'This Order shall apply to suits between a firm and one or more of the partners therein and to suits between firms having one or more partners in common; but no execution ...
Hiraman Ratan and ors. Vs. Purshottam Deorao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom260; (1953)55BOMLR170; ILR1953Bom680
Gajendragadkar, J.(1) The snort point which arises in this civil revision application is Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their debts adjusted in respect of the opponent. An application was made by the petitioners' father on 15-10-1945, for the adjustment of his debts due from him to three creditors. Amongst them opponent I was the first creditor. This application was made to the Board, and at the time when it was made, it would have been governed by the provisions of Bombay Act 28 of 1939. However, the application was not disposed of until 12-4-1950. Meanwhile, the present Act 28 of 1947 had come into operation on 27-5-1947. Before the learned trial Judge, two contentions were raised by the creditor against the petitioners' claim for adjustment it was urged that the application was incompetent under Section 45, Sub-section (2), of the earlier Act of 1939. It was also contended that the application was barred under the provisions of Section 25, Sub-section (1), of the new A...
Dhondi Tukaram Vs. Dadoo Piraji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Bom100a; (1953)55BOMLR663
ORDERShah, J.1. It is true that an inference as to permanent tenancy is a mixed question of law and fact and could foe raised in second appeal. But the facts found from which the inference in favour of a party claiming to be a permanent tenant is sought to be raised must be regarded as binding in second appeal, though the question as to what inference should be raised from those facts must be regarded as a question of law. In the present case on the facts found it is impossible to raise a presumption under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Admittedly there is no Miras Patra in favour of defendants 1 and 2, and the question that defendants 1 and 2 were mirasdars was not argued before the learned appellate Judge. Even though the question as to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain and decide a suit relating to tenancy and protected tenancy was not argued in the lower appellate Court, Mr. Shukhtankar on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 has conten...
Ranchhodlal Manekal Vs. Maneklal Pranjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom436; (1953)55BOMLR471; ILR1953Bom165
Gajendragadkar, J.1. In this matter, a short point under the Court-fees Act has been raised by Mr. Pathak before us. An application was made by Mr. Pathak on behalf of the appellant for the refund of court-fees paid by him on his memo. of appeal. That application has been rejected by the Registrar, and Mr. Pathak argues that the Registrar's decision is wrong in law. There is no reported decision of this Court precisely on the point raised before us and so at our instance Mr. Gambhirwala has appeared on behalf of the Government Pleader to assist us in deciding this point.2. The suit from which the appeal arose had been filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit property together with arrears of rent and mesne profits. This claim was resisted by the defendant on several grounds, and the learned Judge framed as many as 13 issues on the pleadings. The plaintiff's claim with regard to the possession was rejected by the learned Judge. His claim with regard to the arrears of ren...
Indian Shipping Industry Ltd. Vs. Dominion of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom396; (1953)55BOMLR485
1. This is a suit filed by a, shipping company against the Dominion of India arising out of 3, contract dated 20-1-1944, made between the plaintiffs and the Textile commissionery Bombay, acting on behalf or the Governor General in Council, who has now been succeeded by the Dominion of India.2. Under the said contract the plaintiffs agreed to transport from Bombay by country crafts standard cloth to certain ports on certain terms and conditions. As one of the terms of the said contract the plaintiffs had to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as security for the due fulfilment of their obligations under the agreement. A de-posit was accordingly made on 9-3-1944, Thereafter the plaintiffs from time to time received 575 bales of cloth for being carried from Bombay to Cochin and Aileppey in the country craft 'Jayant'. The said country craft left Bombay for the ports of Cochin and Alleppey on 15-3-1914. After passing Khanderi, water began to enter the said country craft and the Tindel of the coun...
Bai Pani Vankar Vs. Madhabhai Galabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom356; (1953)55BOMLR331; ILR1953Bom965
(1) A suit was filed by one Soma Parma, who was a minor, through his next friend. This suit was dismissed on 23-12-1950. By that time Soma had attained majority and he instructed his pleader on 21-1-1951, to prefer an appeal and he signed a vakalatnama in favour of the pleader on January 22. The pleader preferred the appeal on 29-1-1951. Prior to that date Soma died on 23-1-1951. On 16-3-1951, the present petitioner, who is the heir and legal representative of Soma applied to the District Court to substitute her name in place of Soma. That application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, and it is from that order that this revision application is preferred.(2) How, apart from authorities, I should have said that the appeal that was preferred, on 29-1-1951, was clearly a nullity. The appellant being dead, the pleader who preferred the appeal had DO authority to prefer any appeal and the vakalatnama signed in his favour had come to an end. If the appeal was a nullity, no order co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›