Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom101; (1933)35BOMLR68
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 3,714 on a promissory note passed to him by defendant No. 1 on January 23, 1925, on the allegation that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 lived in union and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were partners of defendant No. 1, and that the promissory note was passed by defendant No. 1 as a partner and manager of the partnership shop.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that defendant No. 3 was a partner of defendant No. 1's firm and that the promissory note was not passed for the partnership business as manager of the firm, and that the debt under the suit promissory note was not binding on defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The findings were arrived at on the ground that the suit was based on the promissory note and not based on the debt independently of the promissory note. He, therefore, held that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not liable on the promissory note signed by defendant No. 1, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom306; (1930)32BOMLR64
Wadia, J.1. The plaintiff is a solicitor of this Court, and has filed this suit against the defendants in tort for conversion of a Dodge car No. Z8529. On or about May 29, 1924, the plaintiff negotiated with the Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Limited for the purchase of the car for the sum of Rs, 5150, and the amount was entered in the daily sale book of the said Agency Company against the plaintiff's name, The plaintiff' evidently was not in a position to pay the whole of the purchase price down at once, and he, therefore, through the intervention of one KhersedjiLimji, the Managing Director of the Agency Company, applied to the defendant corporation to arrange for payment of the said sum on certain terms. The said application was made on a printed form of the defendant corporation ' for the purchase' of a Dodge car to be used, in Bombay for the ' purchase price ' of Rs. 5150 on 'your Hire Purchase system,' meaning the Hire Purchase system of the defendants. The details of the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom213; (1935)37BOMLR165
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the 1st defendant the sum of Rs. 13,350 and interest for moneys lent and advanced to him at different times in 1920, and for an order for sale of certain shares alleged to have been pledged with him in or about January, 1922, as security for repayment of the loans advanced to him, and for other ancillary reliefs. The 1st defendant was adjudicated insolvent on November 22, 1933, and the Official Assignee is now on record as the 2nd defendant in the suit. He has appeared at the hearing and adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant who denies the loans and payments for interest, but says that moneys were paid by him to the plaintiff on account of the losses sustained by him on certain gambling and wagering transactions which, according to him, were carried on in the plaintiff's house. He denies the pledge and says that the shares, namely, 226 deferred ordinary shares and 236 preferred ordinary shares of the Britis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom171; (1934)36BOMLR290
Shingne, J.1. On November 1, 1898, Ranchod, the father of plaintiff No. 2, sold the house in suit to one Bai Jivi for Rs. 899 under a registered deed. On the same day Bai Jivi executed an agreement in writing in favour of Ranchod, agreeing that she or her heirs would reconvey the house to Ranchod or his heirs on repayment of the sum of Rs. 899 with interest at eight annas per cent, per mensem. The agreement was not registered. Ranchod died leaving a son, who is plaintiff No. 2 in this case. Bai Jivi died leaving a daughter by name Bai Mani, who was the original defendant in this suit but died pending this suit. Her daughter Bai Dhanoo was, therefore, brought on record as her heir or legal representative. In October, 1918, plaintiff No. 2 assigned by a deed his right in the house to plaintiff No. 1. Prior to the assignment, plaintiff No. 2 had given to Bai Mani a notice (Exh. 42) asking the latter to make up the account in respect of the transaction and to reconvey the house on taking t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR363
George Rankin, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was. brought in forma pauperis on September 18, 1922, by the three sons of one Kashinath against no fewer than seventy-eight defendants. The plaint is a long and complicated document of sixty-nine paragraphs and the general, outline of its contents is that Kashinath, the father and karta of a Mitakshara family, had embarked upon a career of vice and extravagance, in the course of which he had parted with a number of the family properties and had lost other properties by sales in execution of decrees. The purpose of the plaint was to recover various properties from the persons to whom they had been thus alienated, upon the footing that the alienations were not made for family necessity, and if made for Kashinath's antecedent debt, were not binding against his sons by reason that they were made for purposes, which the Hindu law regards as immoral. In respect that all the transactions impugned were brought under the allegation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom392; (1937)39BOMLR486
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant to recover 3. sum of Rs. 10,000 or such other sum as to the Court may seem adequate for damages for breach of promise of marriage, and a further sum of Rs. 426 for moneys spent and expenses incurred at the time of her betrothal with the defendant and subsequent thereto. Plaintiff was engaged to be married to the defendant on or about March 21, 1934, when she was about seventeen years old, and the suit was originally filed by her through her mother as next friend. Thereafter she attained the age of eighteen, and the next friend was discharged, and the plaint was re-declared by the plaintiff personally. Defendant denies liability on the ground that the agreement of marriage is void and unenforceable in law, as the plaintiff was admittedly a minor at the date of that agreement. He denies liability also on the ground that his consent to the agreement was obtained by certain false and fraudulent representations alleged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom347; (1938)40BOMLR478
Blackwell, J.1. On March 24, 1930, R.E. Thompson applied for a patent in the United Kingdom relating to improvements in safety razor blades of the thin flexible type having external cutting edges and a medial slot and which were intended to be bent transversely and maintained in a position of curvature during use. A patent was granted to him in the United Kingdom on September 24, 1931. The specification and the certificate of the Controller relating to the granting of that patent are exhibit D.2. On May 19, 1930, R. E. Thompson made an application for a similar patent in India, and he claimed the priority date of the United Kingdom patent. On June 4, 1931, a patent was granted to him in India for sixteen years from September 7, 1933, and the certificate of the Controller and the patent-specification are exhibit A.3. On October 23, 1931, the Indian patent was assigned by Thompson to the plaintiffs. The assignment and the certificate of the Controller as to registration thereof are exhib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR1156
Engineer, J.1. The claim in the suit is an extraordinary one. The plaintiffs pray for the dissolution and accounts of what they call a family partnership business, which, according to them, was dissolved on October 1, 1933. The parties to the suit are Irani Zoroastrians. The basis on which their claim is made is set out in para. 6 of the plaint as follows :-An ancient invariable and well known custom prevails among Iranis who have settled down in Bombay that they carry on family business in partnership and every male member of the family joins such family business and acquires an equal share in the profits and losses as well as the assets of the firm with the other members of the family who have previously joined such family business.2. The family partnership business mentioned in the plaint is alleged to have started in 1892, when Behram, the eldest brother of plaintiff No. 1, having come to Bombay, started a tea shop. In 1897 the second brother Merwan, who was the original defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom467; (1934)36BOMLR983
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against Laxmandas Shivlal who are described as a firm carrying: on business as merchants at Parbhani in the territories of H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad. In paragraph 9 of the plaint they have stated that a material part of the cause of action in this suit has arisen in Bombay and that with leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was granted and the plaint was admitted on the file by the chamber Judge on June 22, 1933. It is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the plaint that the plaintiffs were suing a firm consisting of a single proprietor. On the face of the plaint, the plaint did not fall within the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1, which enables 'any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in British India to sue or to be sued in the name of the firm of which such persons were p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR1014
Rangnekar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out facts and issues raised, proceeded-] The point raised relates to a question of procedure under the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of this Court as to what is the proper procedure to be followed where two wills are set up by two persons in regard to the same estate, and I have taken time to consider my decision in order to settle the practice once for all.2. The first question is, What is the procedure to be followed For that I have to turn to Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act and Rule 602 of the Original Side Rules. Section 295 provides that wherever there is contention in probate proceedings, the proceedings shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1928 in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the plaintiff', and the person who has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant....
Tag this Judgment!