Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom299; (1934)36BOMLR658
Murphy, J.1. The question raised in these two civil revision applications is, whether the appointment in writing required to be given to an advocate to act and plead for a client in the Small Causes Court, requires a revenue stamp of Re. 1 or not, and the answer depends on the further question of, whether such a document is a power-of-attorney, or not.2. The facts on which these applications are based were, that on November 30, 1931, Mr. Hormusji K. Bhabha's advocate, Mr. Sorab B. Dadyburjor, made an application to the Registrar of the Small Causes Court to institute a suit for rent due-Rs. 24-from one of Mr. Bhabha's tenants. The application was in order, except that it was not signed by Mr. Bhabha as it might have been, but by Mr. Dadyburjor purporting to act for him, on the strength of what is called in our Courts a vakalatnama, Which was unstamped.3. It appears that, on November 7, 1931, what is Order III, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, was applied by the High Court to the Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR697
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought from a decree of the High Court at Lahore dated January 31, 1936, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lyallpur, dated January 31, 1935, and dismissing the appellants suit. The subject-matter of the dispute is someof squares of land in the district of Lyallpur in the Punjab, which (as is now admitted) belonged to one Ishar Singh who died childless on October 6, 1905, leaving him surviving a widow Bishan Devi; also a brother's son Sundar Singh who died on January 10, 1922. On February 7, 1929, the widow purported to make a gift of one portion of the land to Sangat Singh (respondent No. 1) and of another portion to a certain Gurdwara (respondent No. 2). The present suit was brought on August 7, 1933, by the appellants, who are three of the four sons of Sundar Singh. The fourth son was made a defendant and is now respondent No. 3. The claim of the plaint is for a declaration that the gifts of land to Sangat Singh and to the Gurdwara have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom166; (1944)46BOMLR279
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla dated April 14, 1943. The action concerns the nature and terms of an agreement which in its original form was entered into in 1892. Variations subsequently took place, the most important of which were in the years 1899 and 1917. The original agreement and the variations were effected by correspondence ; and, as appears from the plaint and the written statement, the parties have treated the original agreement as constituting an agency, and that is the relationship which, it is common ground, both in the Court below and in this Court, is the aspect of the matter on which both parties rely. What is in dispute is whether the agency is, as the Advocate General submitted, of a permanent character, or to put it in other way, whether the authority of the appellants' agency is irrevocable. But if it is revocable, then it is contended on behalf of the appellants that it is only terminable on the reasonable notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom436; (1925)27BOMLR616
Crump, J.1. This matter arises out of a suit No. 4310 of 1923, which was heard by Mulla J., and disposed off by him on July 3, 1924. The suit was one. by the plaintiff Kasturbai for a dissolution of partnership and for partnership accounts. Among the other defences pleaded by the defendant., he said that there was no partnership between himself and Kastuibai, and that a certain agreement evidencing the partnership had not been acted upon. The learned Judge who heard the suit came to a conclusion adverse to the defendant upon that issue, and, in the course of doing so, he expressed himself very strongly as to the conduct of the defendant in the suit. The following passage from his judgment shows his opinion upon this matter:-As regards the defendant I have no hesitation in saying that it is rarely that one comes across a witness of his typo, who is not ashamed in telling a aeries of lies barefacedly in this Court. The story about his brother being the owner I hold in a false invention.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom385; (1935)37BOMLR642; 159Ind.Cas.533
Tyabji, J.1. One Khetsey Khiasey died at Limbdi in Kathiawar on March 6, 1922. He left a will appointing his widow Bai Vejbai as executrix. Probate was obtained by Bai Vejbai on a petition dated June 13, 1922. In the schedule to the petition the assets were shown as Rs. 55,82,521-5-4 and the debts as Rs. 36,18,567-2-0, leaving a net estate of Rs. 19,63,954-3-4. The assets were not completely administered by Bai Vejbai, and on her death a petition for double probate was filed on January 6, 1926. The total assets as therein stated were Rs. 27,01,756-10-3 and the debts Rs. 23,82,153-1-0 leaving the net assets of Rs. 3,19,603-9-3.2. During the time that Bai Vejbai was administering the estate, defendant No. 1, Raimal Hirji, applied to her for payment of a sum due to himself as trustee of an institution (a Jain Boarding School at Palitana) established by the deceased on October 23, 1905. Under the trust deed the trustees were authorised to retain the sum dedicated by the deceased Khetsey Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom410; (1939)41BOMLR899
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of Mr. Justice Somjee. There are two plaintiffs, both of which are firms, which have been registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They financed defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the purchase of large quantities of corrugated iron sheets, and they sue for a sum of over nine lakhs of rupees alleged to be due from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of these transactions. Various defences were set up on the merits, all of which failed, but by an amendment the defendants alleged that in respect of these transactions for financing them the two plaintiff firms became partners ad hoc, and that that partnership was not registered under the Partnership Act, and, therefore, the plaintiffs' suit did not lie under Section 69(2) of the Act. That defence prevailed with the learned Judge, who accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The question, which we have to determine on this appeal, is whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR740
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing an application under Section 491 of the Criminal. Procedure Code for the release of one Burhan-ud-Din. Bnnhnn-ud-Din is a member of the ruling family of Chitral, an Indian State adjoining the North-West Frontier Province. The Ruler of Chitral has in recent times been recognised by His Majesty the King Emperor as a Ruler of an Indian State. Bnrhan-ud-Din is thus admittedly not a British subject 5 he, however, became an Indian Commissioned Officer in 1936 and was attached to the 2/10 Balueh Regiment of the Indian Army in which he attained the rank of Captain. In September-October, 1945, he was suspected of having committed offences under Sections 121 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code; and, pending investigation and disposal of these charges, he was kept in military custody according to the usage of the service. A general court-martial for the trial of Burhan-ud-Din was constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR1021
Tomlin, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the question whether a creditor's proof lodged by the respondent in the liquidation of the company whose liquidator is the appellant and rejected by the liquidator was properly so rejected.2. On December 23, 1929, the trial Judge on the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon held that the proof was rightly rejected. On August 4,1930, this decision was reversed on appeal to the appellate side of the Court.3. The proof in question was for Rs. 63,219-15-0, damages alleged to have been incurred by the respondent by reason of the failure of the company to complete the purchase of property agreed to be sold by the respondent by an agreement dated July 27, 1921.4. The only question in issue or debated at the hearing before the trial Judge, or on the appeal, was whether the agreement for sale (on the face of which the purchaser was one M.E. Moolla) had been entered into by Moolla on his own account or whether the company was the undi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1888)ILR12Bom280
Jardine, J.1. The plaintiff Cassumbhoy is the eldest son of the first defendant Ahmedbhoy Hubibhoy; the 2nd defendant Hosseinbhoy, a minor, is another son of Ahmedbhoy. The parties belong to a family of Khoj as who have for several generations carried on mercantile business in Bombay. The plaint was filed on the 9th October, 1884. In the first three paragraphs it alleges that Ahmedbhoy's father, one Hubibhoy, son of Ibrahim, died in A.D. 1865, whereupon, and under Hubibhoy's will, dated the 29th December, 1864, Ahmedbhoy came into possession of a large amount of property, moveable and immoveable, which said property in his hands has been largely added to by the accretions thereof and aggregates, as plaintiff estimates, about 20 lakhs. In paragraph 4 the plaintiff says that 'according to the laws and usages by which members of the Khoja community in Bombay are governed, and which, in this behalf, are the same as are applicable to Hindus, the property aforesaid in the hands of the said d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom471; (1934)36BOMLR954
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The accused Inderchand Bachraj Marwadi was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Western Division, East Khandesh, of offences under Sections 209 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer eight months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months' further imprisonment under each offence. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be consecutive. In appeal the Sessions Judge of East Khandesh reduced the sentences to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months' further imprisonment under each offence, the sentences of imprisonment to be concurrent. Against this decision the accused filed an application in revision to this Court. This application was heard by a single Judge,. Mr. Justice Kania, during the vacation, and was summarily dismissed on April 30, 1934. After this decision the Government have filed the present application in revision asking that the sentences passed upon the accused...
Tag this Judgment!