Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom217; (1946)48BOMLR828
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated September 17, 1945.2. In the action the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 in this Court, sought a declaration and consequential relief with the object of establishing that certain alleged liens claimed by and in favour of the Asian Assurance Company, Ltd., (defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to this appeal) upon 26,000 shares in that company do not attach to the shares. The Official Assignee (defendant No. 5 and the appellant in this Court) filed a counter-claim for redemption of the shares claiming that the equity of redemption was vested in him as trustee of the property of Mr. Meyer Nissim who was adjudicated an insolvent on July 16, 1940. In the Court below, the plaintiff was successful in his claim, and the learned Judge granted him certain relief against which there is no appeal, but the Official Assignee's counter-claim was dismissed with costs, and it is against that dismissal that this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR1047
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated November 28, 1933, whereby the appeal of one of the present respondents, viz. Lachman Singh, was allowed and the suit as against the said Lachman Singh and :his share of the mortgage property was dismissed. The plaintiffs are Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh and his two manor sons and the suit was brought for foreclosure of a mortgage dated June 23, 1909, purporting to be executed by Himmat Singh (now deceased), Mulu Singh and Musammat Jamna Kunwar, mother and certified guardian of the said Lachman Singh, who was then a minor, in favour of Surendra Bahadur Singh in respect of certain zemindari property to secure a loan of Rs. 18,000 and 4 1/2 per cent. interest in order to pay off prior mortgages at a higher rate of interest. The defendant-respondents Nos. 1-9 are heirs of Himmat Singh, No. 10 is Lachman Singh, Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are Mulu Singh and hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom581; (1927)29BOMLR1296
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rangnekar raises an interesting point of partnership law, which has been excellently argued by counsel on both sides. The question is whether, when a plaintiff brings a suit for debt against a partnership firm as such, but the firm has been dissolved to the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the suit, it is necessary to add the legal personal representatives of the deceased partner as parties, in order to enable execution to be levied against the estate of the deceased partner. It is conceded that the partnership assets may be taken in satisfaction of a decree in a suit so framed. But can the estate of the deceased partner be reached irrespective of his share in the partnership assets Mr. Justice Rangnekar held that in such a case it is necessary to add the legal personal representatives, and that as these representatives were not parties to the original suit but were added subsequently when the period of limita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom421; (1928)30BOMLR970; 113Ind.Cas.511
Patkar, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought against the G.I.P. Railway in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur on March 10, 1925, and June 29, 1925, respectively. On July 1, 1925, the G.I.P. Railway became a state managed railway, and in September 1925, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge returned the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, on the ground that the Secretary of State for India in Council being joined as a party to the suits, he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The plaints were presented to the District Court and numbered as Suits Nos. 4 and 11 of 1925.2. The learned District Judge raised a preliminary issue 'whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code,' and found on the issue in the affirmative and rejected the plaints.3. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been properly construed, that the suits were already instituted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR138
Goddard, J.1. Their Lordships now give their reasons for the advice they humbly tendered to His Majesty on July 31, that this appeal should be dismissed.2. The appellant together with his brother Elmi was charged on July 22, 1944, before the Protectorate Court of Somaliland with the murder of his half-brother Abdillahi on or about May 17, 1942. The Judge of the Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, and acquitted Elmi. The conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Military Governor sitting as Judge of the Protectorate Court on the appellate side and the appellant subsequently obtained special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The ground upon which special leave was given was that the Court had admitted and acted upon the unsworn evidence of a girl of ten or eleven years of age whom the Judge found was competent to testify but whom he did not consider was able to understand the nature of an oath. It was conceded by the Crown that if her evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR1338
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature in Bengal affirming an order of the Court made in its original civil jurisdiction on an application for directions made by the liquidators of the Bengal National Bank, Ltd., the respondents in this appeal. The respondent bank was incorporated in 1907 and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882. On or before May 4, 1923, the respondent bank had borrowed from the Imperial Bank of India, the appellant, hereinafter called the Imperial Bank, the sum of ten lacs with interest, and on May 4, executed and delivered to the Imperial Bank a debenture creating a floating charge on the whole undertaking, properties, assets and interests present and future of the respondent bank as security for the loan. On August 1,1923, a similar debenture was executed and delivered to the Imperial Bank, creating a similar floating charge as security for a further loan of ten lacs with interest. Both documents were duly registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom321; (1923)25BOMLR945
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 to the High Court of Bombay for the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage in a suit filed in the Court of the District Judge of Poona by the petitioner Alfred Wilkinson against his wife Norah Wilkinson as the respondent and a Captain D' Arcy as co-respondent.2. The petitioner alleged that he was married to the respondent on August 8, 1914, at Poona. That he resided in Poona till 1317 and in Bombay until 1920 when he went to England with his wife and two children. That he returned on March 18, 1921, and resided at Poona. From May 1, he was employed in Bombay while his wife remained at Poona and they last resided together at Poona. In Poona the respondent became familiar with the co-respondent and on various occasions committed adultery with him. On August 22, the respondent came to Bombay to the petitioner and on the 23rd left him to go away with the co-respondent who lef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom125; (1922)24BOMLR1140
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 43,125 being the price and other charges of twenty motor cars consigned by plaintiffs from Bombay to the defendants at Amballa under a contract between the parties and destroyed by fire in transit.2. Prior to 1920 there was a firm, named Ford Automobiles, which carried on business in Bombay in Ford cars and accessories. The plaintiffs were registered as a limited company early in 1920 and they purchased the business of the said firm. The plaintiff company is now under liquidation and the present suit is brought by the liquidator of the company in the company's name.3. The defendants carry on business as commission agents at Delhi. It seems that there were some dealings between the defendants and the said firm prior to 1920. In March 1920 the plaintiffs employed the defendants as their commission agents for the sale of Ford motors in Delhi and other places. The terms of the agency contract were arranged between the plaint- inV representative and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom307; (1934)36BOMLR643
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree obtained by the present respondent against the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The decree was passed on November 24, 1923, for Rs. 5,550 in suit No. 973 of 1921. Two years later, another suit was filed by the present appellants against the respondent. That was suit No. 1169 of 1923 in which the appellants ultimately got a decree in their favour against the respondent on February 20, 1925. An appeal was filed against this latter decree by the present respondent on June 15, 1925, and that appeal was decided finally on January 27, 1930, by the appellate Court, which confirmed the trial Court's decree.2. Now, the events that led to this appeal arose in this way3. The present respondent filed his darkhast No. 70 of 1924 against the appellants on January 16, 1924, and therein he applied for the execution of the whole of the decree obtained by him, i. e., to recover Rs. 5,550 with interest and costs. After this da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom97
Beaumont, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other holders of the second preference shares in the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., against the company claiming in effect to establish that the company were not entitled to deduct from dividends on the second preference shares income-tax for the years 1922-23 to 1934-35 inclusive on the ground that in those years the company's income was assessed at nil and the company was exempted from payment of income-tax. The suit was heard by a Bench of three Judges because it was represented to me that large sums were at stake and that an appeal would almost certainly be preferred to the Privy Council, and that the questions at issue depended on documentary evidence, and raised only matters of law. The plaint in para. 21 raises a case of fraudulent misrepresentation but that claim was abandoned at the outset of the case, and thereupon the defendant company abandoned their contention that the suit is not maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!