Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.124
Beaman, J.1. The question in this case is whether certain of the defendants are precluded from contesting the plaintiff's allegation that the property in his hands is his self-acquired property by the decision in Ahmedhhoy Ilubibhhoy v. Cassumbhoy Ahmedhhoy 12 B. 280. And this question breaks up into two main parts, first, whether this point was in fact decided in Ahmedbhoy's case 12 B. 280. Next, whether if it, was so decided, that decision constitutes resjudicata against the defendants concerned.2. With reference to the first of these points, it is material to quote their Lordships' actual words, which are : this is sufficient .for the decision of the case,' that is to say, their finding upon the point with which they had just dealt is sufficient to dispose of the case. But they go on to say: 'We think it advisable to express an opinion on the question &c.; and, therefore, they proceed to discuss the evidence relating to the character of the property in Ahmedbhoy's hands and come to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR881
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Broomfield in a patent action. The material facts are that in the year 1927, the plaintiff, who is a chemist, started a business in partnership with one Girdharlal, who is the brother of the defendant, the name of the firm being Jarivalla Shah & Co. The defendant was a clerk in the employment of the firm. The firm had an experimental branch which carried on business in the name of Jasco & Co., that firm being in charge of one Dr. Patel. In August, 1928, the plaintiff left for Europe, leaving Dr. Patel in charge of the chemistry department. In February, 1929, the plaintiff returned to Bombay, and shortly thereafter Dr. Patel left the employment of the firm. In or about October, 1929, a firm called Harak-chand Shivji & Co. approached the plaintiff and asked him whether he could introduce a system of producing white almonds by some process of bleaching the shells. On November 9, 1929, the plaintiff commenced exper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR971
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its appellate jurisdiction dated April 5, 1946, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction dated March 28, 1945.2. The appeal arises out of a suit by way of originating summons instituted by the appellant for the construction of the will of his father the late Rai Bihari Lal Mitra.3. The facts are not in dispute. The testator was a wealthy Hindu governed by the-Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. He died on February 7, 1933, leaving him surviving his widow Sreemutty Nayani Mitra, his only son the appellant Aniruddha Mitra, and the wife of the appellant, Sreemutty Nivanani Mitra.4. At the time of the testator's death the appellant and his wife had no children. On July 4, 1934, the appellant took respondent No. 2 Aiabinda Mitra in adoption as his son. He was born on October 19, 1932.5. On July 5, 1931, the testator executed his last will whereby he appointed r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR583
Davar, J.1. On the 15th of June 1909, the two plaintiffs filed this suit against three defendants, Mahomedali Ebrahim, Cassum Ebrahim and Cawasji Motabhai, alleging that the property in the plaint mentioned was religious charitable property, that the first two defendants had arranged to mortgage the said property to the third defendant pursuant to an order obtained from the Court and got from him Rs. 500 as earnest money, that though the intended mortgage fell through the third defendant had obtained a collusive decree against the first two defendants and that the third defendant had attached the said charitable property and was about to have the same sold.2. They prayed for a scheme, for a declaration that the order authorizing the mortgage was null and void and may be set aside for an order restraining the sale, for accounts, and for further and other relief.3. Pending suit the first defendant died. The suit was called on for hearing before me on the 15th of August last when his name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom1; (1942)44BOMLR830
Broomfield J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings which raises an interesting point of limitation.2. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellants in a suit for sale on a mortgage for Rs. 54,000 and odd. The suit was filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Akola. The preliminary decree was made on September 30, 1926, and the final decree on July 2, 1927. As the mortgaged property was in the jurisdiction of the First Class Subordinate Judge of East Khandesh, the respondent applied in October, 1927, for transfer of the decree to that Court. An order of transfer was made on December 22, 1927, and the documents required by Order XXI, Rule (5, i.e. a copy of the decree and certificate of non-satisfaction, were sent to the Court at Jalgaon on September 3, 1928. A darkhast was filed to recover the amount of the decree by sale of the property, but there were no bidders and on that ground the darkhast was disposed of on March 22, 1933.3. On May 12, 1934, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1924)26BOMLR509
Phillimore, J.1. The suit in this case was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bijapur to recover possession of certain vatan lands and other lands of ordinary tenure, the plaintiff making a claim as the nearest agnate to the last male owner, and averring that his title accrued on the death of the latter's widow. The principal defendant, the now respondent, being in possession of the property, pleaded various defences of which the one which is important for present consideration, depends upon the Indian Limitation Act.2. The plaintiff recovered judgment before the Subordinate Judge for possession of the vatan lands, but not of the lands of ordinary tenure. Appeal was taken to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and gave judgment for the defendant.M3. From this decree, the representatives of the original plaintiff have appealed to His Majesty in Council. As to the non-vatan lands, the plaintiff acquiesced in the decis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom560; (1927)29BOMLR1244
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an issue under Order XXI, Rule 50, of the Civil Procedure Code, as to the liability of one Pillani in respect of a decree passed by myself on February 22, 1926, against the Wadia Woollen Mills Ltd. and Husseinbhai Pillani Wadia & Co. for Rs. 2,00,000 and interest at 8 1/4 per cent, per annum from April 3, 1924. Mr. Pillani disputed his liability on the ground that the liability in respect of which the decree was passed occurred after the date when he had retired from the second defendant firm, and that inasmuch as he had given public notice by advertisement in the Bombay Government Gazette and in four local newspapers, to wit, The Times of India, The Bombay Chronicle, The Bombay Samachar and The Sanj Vartman, he was not liable for the liabilities which the continuing partners incurred after the date of his retirement, For that purpose he relied on Section 264 of the Indian Contract Act. Mr. Justice Taleyarkhan decided this point against Mr, Pillani....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR1325
Shah, J.1. The facts, which have given rise to this appeal, are briefly these :-The plaintiffs sued the defendants in this case in 1912 to recover possession of Section No, 87, pot No. 1, or such portion thereof, as they may be found entitled to, with mesne profits ; or in the alternative, for redemption of certain mortgages referred to in the plaint. On March 26, the following decree was passed by the trial Court:-Plaintiff to pay into Court the amount) due to defendant) No. 2 Rs. 420 within six months of this ditto. On such payment they are to recover Section No. 87, pot No. 1, in suit. In case of default they shall be debarrad from all right to redeem the property. The usual preliminary decree for redemption to be drawn up with the necessary changes as indicated.2. Defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Court of Thana. That appeal was allowed, the decree of the trial Court was reversed, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with all costs on the plaintiffs by the Assistant Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR1115
Blanesburgh, J.1. The Tata Industrial Bank, Limited, was in the year 1917 incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1918, for the purpose of carrying on the business of banking in all its branches. It had a nominal capital of twelve crores of rupees, divided into 1,600,000 shares of 75 rupees each. In July, 1923, 1,000,893 of its shares were in issue, and on each of them the sum of Us. 22-8 had been paid up. There was therefore an uncalled liability of Rs. 52-8 on every issued share, In July, 1923, the first appellant was the holder of one hundred of these 1,000,893 shares, and the second appellant was the holder of live. The relatively trifling amount of these holdings constitutes a circumstance of relevance at many stages of this case.2. It seems to be accepted on all hands that for some years prior to July, 1923, the Tata Bank had been losing ground. It is in evidence that its deposits had in two and a half years sunk from twelve crores to three and a half crorers. Its industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1946Bom429; (1946)48BOMLR274
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from two judgments of Mr.. Justice Chagla dated March 15, 1944, and November 10, 1944, by which he ordered the appellants to pay to the respondents Rs. 2,77,000 as damages for breach of contract.2. The fact that there was a contract whereby the appellants agreed to sell to the respondents one hundred tons of special featherweight bond paper, more particularly described in exhibit E, which is a letter dated July 10/15, 1942, is not now in dispute. Nor is it disputed that the appellants are in breach of that contract. The controversy is directed to the date of the breach and to the quantum of damages, if any. Mr. Colt-man for the appellants admits with considerable force and logic that in order to determine that controversy it is essential to start at the beginning and to ascertain the terms of the contract. Unfortunately the position in this regard has become confused by the course which the proceedings have taken which necessitated an amendm...
Tag this Judgment!