Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR1370
Buckmaster, J.1. Two questions arise upon this appeal -the first as to whether the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province was right (a) in permitting the three first respondents to amend their pleadings, and (6) in dismissing certain appeal in that had been wrongly entered in his Court. The two points are distinct, but they both arise in connection with litigation set on foot by six distinct suits which have all been consolidated and dealt with as one. These suits were instituted by the three first respondents claiming a declaration that they were entitled to certain rights of pre-emption against the several defendants, who were vendees of different shares and interests in some 6,813 kanals in the village of Tazagram.2. The following table will show at once the dates of the conveyances which gave rise to the rights of pre-emption and take dates and numbers of the suits brought in connection with those rights. >---------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom160; (1943)45BOMLR220
Divatia, J.1. This is a revisional application by the plaintiff against an order granting the application made by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, for amendment of the written statement by adding the plea that the suit was barred under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for want of a proper and adequate notice and that it was not properly valued for pleaders fees.2. The suit was brought for a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to recover from the plaintiff the amounts which were paid from time to time as tagavi loans to certain persons from whom the plaintiff held an ijara. It was averred in the plaint, among other things, that a notice had been given by the plaintiff to the Secretary of State for India in Council on July 12, 1935, as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was filed on February 18, 1936, the written statement was filed on October 9, 1936, and although a large number of points were taken, there was no ple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR106
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused was tried on a charge under Section 19 (a) and (d) of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878 before the Honorary First Class Magistrate at Bhusaval, and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and reduced the fine to Rs. 50.2. The accused, who is a Sikh resident of Delhi, was found in possession of thirty-five kirpans or jarabias at Bhusaval. The accused admitted that he had brought them from Delhi and desired to take them in the Nizam's territory for sale and also admitted that he had already sold two Kirpans at Bhusaval. Out of the thirty-five kirpans nine kirpans were below nine inches, twenty-three were between nine and nine- and a half inches, and three were ten inches in length.3. Under a 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, the Governor General in Council may, from time to time, by notification published in the Gazette of India:(a) exempt any person by name or in virtue of his offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR675
Blagden, J.1. This is an application for judgment in terms of an award made under Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The award was made on March 25 last and it was filed in this Court on May 1, and on June 7 notice was given by this Court to the respondent to the effect that the award had been filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of that Act. The present application is made pursuant to a notice dated July 24 for August 10 of this year, and between June 7 and July 24 the present respondent has, so far as is material to this application, done nothing. Article 158 of the Limitation Act, as amended by the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940, provides a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the notice of the filing of the award for an application to set aside an award or to get the award remitted for reconsideration. Thirty days from June 7 would expire on July 7, well before the present notice of motion was taken out. Nonetheless, the respondent has attended th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom423; (1936)38BOMLR864
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an action the like of which I have never heard of and in support of which no precedent can be or has been produced. Counsel in the case tell me that one of the questions raised by it has not yet come up for decision in any Court. The claim in the suit is for a redistribution of the fund paid over by the Court to the creditors of a deceased person whose estate was under its administration, and it is made by one creditor who has not received his rateable share in the distribution of the fund against the other creditors.2. The plaintiff was carrying on business in Bombay till 1927. He had entered into various transactions for the sale and purchase of cotton for April-May-December, 1926, and January, 1927, vaidas with one Noorani in Bombay. Noorani committed suicide on or about October 8, 1926. At the time of his death he was indebted to the plaintiff, as a result of the transactions, in the sum of Rs. 18,762-3-6.3. Three days after Noorani's death, defendants No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom342; (1939)41BOMLR518
Engineer, J.1. This is a summons for judgment, and the first point that arises is whether as submitted by the defendants the suit as a summary suit is barred by the law of limitation.2. The article applicable in summary suits is Article 5, which as it originally stood, provided a period of one year. That article was amended by an amendment which came into force on January 15, 1938. By this amendment the period of limitation is increased to three years. It is common ground that before January 15, 1938, more than one year had expired from the accrual of the cause of action, so that if the original article applies, the plaintiffs are not at liberty to file this suit as a summary suit. The plaintiffs however contend that the. amendment is retrospective and that the Indian Limitation Act in force when the suit was filed was the Act as amended, and therefore the period of limitation applicable is three years.3. The Indian Limitation Act of 1859 provided by Section 18 that all suits that migh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom191; (1930)32BOMLR215
Mirza, J.1. This is a suit by three of the legatees under the will of one Fatmabai, widow of Abdulla Haji Dawood, against the proving executor of the will and other legatees and heirs and legal representatives of such legatees as have died since the death of Fatmabai for the administration of the estate of the testatrix and for payment to the legatees and the representatives of the legatees such legacies as are provided for by the will. Fatmabai died on January 14, 1928, after having made her will on September 10, 1914. Two of the executors appointed by the will died in the life-time of the testatrix, Defendant No. 1, who is the third executor under the will, obtained probate of it on July 4, 1924. At the date of the will the testatrix owned an immovable property at Eipon Road. After the date of the will she acquired another immoveable property at Malad. By a Judge's order dated October 1, 1928, the plaint and proceedings were ordered to be amended by making the Advocate General as rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom572; (1930)32BOMLR232
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Govind Narayaii Kakade, respondent No. 5, against the decree of the learned District Judge of Sholapur finding him liable for misfeasance or breach of trust as a director in the sum of Rs. 12,000 jointly with respondents Nos, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on an application made by the petitioner as liquidator of the Sholapur Bank, Limited, under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act '1913.2. The main defences are that the appellant not having been guilty of any wilful neglect or default is protected by the articles of association of the bank from this claim : or alternatively, that he has acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused under Section 281 of the Indian Companies Act. Another main ground of defence is that in any event the claim against the appellant is barred by limitation.3. The history of the bank and the main facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of my brother Patkar which I have had the advantage of readi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1918Bom20; (1919)21BOMLR190; 50Ind.Cas.437
Marten, J.1. This is an application in bankruptcy and it raises two entirely different questions. The first is technical: the second is as to the merits of the case.2. The first question (viz., the technical one) is, what is the proper procedure for a creditor to adopt who wishes to have two alleged members of a firm of five persons re-adjudicated bankrupt, there being already a bankruptcy petition by other creditors, on which an adjudication order has been made against all five persons but has been subsequently annulled as regards two of them ?3. The second question (via., on the merits) is whether the two persons in question were partners in the firm I have mentioned. If they were partners, they ought to be adjudicated bankrupt, subject to the technical point I have mentioned. If they were not partners, then there is no ground whatever for adjudicating them bankrupt.4. The petition I have to deal with, as it originally came before me, is one asking simply for the readjudication of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom435; (1939)41BOMLR609
Kania, J.1. This case, which involves a sum of three thousand rupees only, has been contested as a test case to determine certain points in the diamond trade in Bombay. Plaintiffs, a firm dealing in diamonds, handed over to defendant No. 1 173 diamonds on or about November 8, 1934, on terms signed by him in the plaintiffs' book. That document runs in the following terms:To.Zaveri Amritlal Raichand,Bombay, 8-11-1934.Written by Shah Fatehchand Lallubhai.I have this day received from you the goods specified below, for the below-stated purposes and on the below-stated conditions.1. The goods have been entrusted to me for the sole purpose of being: shown to the intending purchasers.2. The ownership of the goods is of you alone and I have no right to or interest in them.3. I have no authority whatever to sell, mortgage the goods or to deal with them otherwise.4. I am bound to return the goods whenever you make a demand for their return,5. I am responsible for the return of the goods to you i...
Tag this Judgment!