Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR1061
Davar, J.1. The appellant, Mr. Ahmedbhai Habibbhai, a well-known wealthy Khoja merchant of Bombay, in January 1907 entered into a contract to sell a very valuable property situate at Mount Pleasant Road, Malabar Hill, to the late Mrs. Awabai Fraraji Petit. The offer and acceptance resulting in the contract of sale of this property, is evidenced by two letters, respectively dated the 31st of January and the 1st of February 1907. By his letter Mr. Ahmedbhai agrees to make out a good title to the property free from all incurabrances and claims whatsoever, and the sale was to be completed within two months from the date of the offer. A formal preliminary agreement containing the terms of this contract was within the contemplation of the parties, and a draft of the contemplated agreement was prepared by Bai Awabai's solicitors, but, for reasons not necessary to discuss, the same was not executed. There is no difference between the parties as to the terms of the contract arrived at between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom501; (1927)29BOMLR996
Madgavkar, J.1. The accused, Jehangir Ardeshir Rustomji Cama, a Deputy Collector under suspension, was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate, Mr. Willis, under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on three charges in this case and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months further simple imprisonment on each of the first two charges, and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further three months simple imprisonment on the third charge, the sentences to run consecutively. In appeal he was acquitted in respect of the third charge, and the convictions and sentences on the first two charges were maintained. He has applied in revision to this Court against his convictions and sentences. Government have also applied to enhance the sentences. The result is that under Section 439(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused, as he was entitled, has exercised his right to show cause against his convict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
MR. M.R. JAYAKAR: The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on 8th September 1928, by the appellants (plaintiffs 3-5) and respondents 29 and 30 (plaintiffs 1 and 2) against respondents 1-28 (defendants 1-28), claiming redemption of certain properties on the allegation that the deed of sale of the said properties dated 25th March 1844, executed by one Gulab Singh (the representative in interest of the plaintiffs) in favour of Het Ram and Tula Ram (the representatives-in-interest of the defendants) and an alleged agreement to transfer the said properties bearing the same date and executed by Het Ram and Tula Ram in favour of Gulab Singh formed one transaction and constituted a mortgage by conditional sale of the properties comprised in the sale deed. In the plaint, plaintiffs mentioned 26th March 1844, as the date of the mortgage completed by the execution of the two documents and they filed with the plaint a certified copy of the said sale deed (which is marked Ex. I) bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1948Bom272; (1948)50BOMLR49
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellants are a joint stock company and they filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the defendants who were the plaintiffs' managing agents for a very long time, their agency having been terminated on November 21, 1940. In the suit various reliefs were claimed against the defendants. The one with which we are concerned related to certain lands at Jalgaon which stood in the name of the defendants and which the plaintiffs claimed to be of their ownership, having; been acquired according to them by the defendants as plaintiffs' agents and with the funds belonging to the plaintiffs. In respect of these lands the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they belonged to and were the property of the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no beneficial interest therein and also they asked for an order against the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom193; (1923)25BOMLR747; 84Ind.Cas.808
Marten, J.1. His Lordship, after narrating the history of the foundation, proceeded : I have dwelt on all these matters at some length not merely because they afford an answer to the appellant (the Acharya) out of his own words, but because they show a vital flaw in the appellant's title or claim to the properties themselves as private properties. All or practically all the suit properties were acquired before Laxmiprasad's deposition. If then it be said that they were the private property of Laxmiprasad, the appellant can only claim them in some way through Laxmiprasad. But Laxmiprasad released all his claims in the properties to the general assembly in return for a money payment. This release was not to the appellant. It was made before the appellant was even installed on the Gadi. Nor is the appellant the next of kin of Laxmiprasad. As I have already pointed out, Laxmiprasad left a minor son who endeavoured unsuccessfully to carry on the High Court Suit No. 365 of 1912.2. Counsel wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1924)ILR48Bom259
Fawcett, J.1. The facts in this case are sufficiently detailed in the Judgment of the Court below and that of my learned brother. I proceed to consider the contentions urged before us in this appeal.2. I first take up the contention of the respondent's counsel, Mr. Lalji, that in any case the contract could not be enforced for want of mutuality; This is based on the ground that two of the defendant's brothers were minors at the time of the contract and on the filling of the Privy Council in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri . In my opinion this plea must be rejected. First of all the objection or want of mutuality has never before been raised by the plaintiff and no issue was framed upon that point. In fact it amounts to an inconsistent plea which would require an amendment of the plaint (Order VI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code). No such amendment has been asked for. Secondly, the plaintiff has by his conduct precluded himself from raising this point, especially in view of h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR650; 42Ind.Cas.9
Marten, J.1. This is an action in effect to recover out of the immoveable property of the Fulmali caste certain sums of money amounting in all to Rs. 7234 which were paid by the plaintiff in order to set aside a judicial sale of this immoveable property and to satisfy certain other attachments which had been made against this property in suit No. 559 of 1911. The defendants other than defendants 11 and 12 represent the caste under a representation order made in this action under 0rder I, Rule 8.2. The defence in effect is that this judicial sale and the warrants for attachment were all made per incuriam without jurisdiction and are not binding on the caste and that even if they are binding, the plaintiff is not entitled to any charge on the property and is indeed without any remedy, for it is contended that as he is not entitled to a personal decree against all the members of the caste, he cannot by attachments get at the caste property. The immoveable property in question is the Caste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All379
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. After the promulgation of Ordinance 19 of 1943 on 5th June 1943, numerous appeals against the decisions of Special Judges and Special Magistrates, in cases tried by them in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 2 of 1942, were filed in this Court and, in most of the appeals, the validity of Ordinance 19 itself was assail-ed. A number of applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., were also filed and in those applications as well the question of the validity or otherwise of Ordinance 19 was directly and specifically in issue. Before these appeals and applications were put for final disposal, the question raised formed the subject of debate and discussion in and of decision by the Calcutta, Patna and the Madras High Courts, and the decisions of those Courts were by no means uniform. To avoid conflict of judicial opinion in this Court on the question raised, and also with a view to have an authoritative pronouncement for the guidance of the Sessions Judges s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 38Ind.Cas.945
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the charge against the accused was as follows:--That he the said Fateh Chand Agarwalla on or about the 26th day of November in the year of our Lord 1915 in Calcutta aforesaid, fraudulently or with intent that fraud might be committed, had in his possession certain counterfeit coins, that is to say, 160 counterfeit rupees, being counterfeit of the King's coin, having known at the time when be became possessed of them that they were counterfeit, and thereby he the said Fateh Chand Agarwalla committed an offence punishable under Section 243 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Secondly, that he the said Fateh Chand Agarwalla at or about the time and in the place aforesaid, fraudulently or with intent that fraud might be committed, had in his possession certain counterfeit coins, that is to say, 3 counterfeit rupees, being counterfeit of the King's coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of them that they were counterfeit, and thereby he the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom119; (1923)25BOMLR1037
Fawcett, J.1. The facts in this case are sufficiently detailed in the judgment of the Court below and that of my learned brother. I proceed to consider the contentions urged before us in this appeal.2. I first take up the contention of the respondent's counsel, Mr. Lalji, that in any case the contract could not be enforced for want of mutuality. This is based on the ground that two of the defendant's brothers were minors at the time of the contract and on the ruling of the Privy Council in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhrud-din Mahomed Chowdhur : 14 Bom. L.R. 5 In my opinion this plea must be rejected. First of all the objection of want of mutuality has never before been raised by the plaintiff and no issue was framed upon that point. In fact it amounts to an inconsistent plea which would require an amendment of plaint (Order VI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code). No such amendment has been asked for. Secondly, the plaintiff has by his conduct precluded him-self from raising this point, especially i...
Tag this Judgment!