Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR321
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated November 13, 1924, reversing a judgment and order dated November 3, 192?, of a single Judge of the same High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. These orders were made in the matter of a petition presented to the Court on May 1,1922, for the compulsory winding-up of the appellant company. By the order1 of November 3, 1922, Mr. Justice KumarswamiSastri dismissed the petition with costs. On appeal his order was discharged by that of November 18, 1924, and the compulsory winding-up of the company was thereby decreed. This appeal from that order reached the Board for hearing more than six years after it had been made, Its discharge accordingly involved the supersession of all proceedings in a liquidation which as a result of it had then been in operation for more than eight years. To this fact are attributable the grave difficulties which have confronted the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom249; (1930)32BOMLR454
Blackwell, J.1. This suit as originally framed was a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 3,841-10-0 upon the basis that the defendant employed the plaintiffs as his commission agents on pakki adat terms. Alternatively, the suit was for the price of goods sold and delivered. Counsel before us have agreed that the case has been fought out upon the footing of a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered. The defence was that the defendant had rightly rejected the goods, and there was a counter-claim for the sum of Rs. 835-12-2 for the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the defendant in respect of the goods in question. [After referring to the issues, His Lordship proceeded :]2. The learned Judge hold that the defendant rejected the goods, and that subsequent to that rejection by him his marks were put on the bags which were then taken from Chamar Godi to the Alexandra Docks. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that this was an exercise of ownership by the defendant over goods w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom239; (1933)35BOMLR462
Patkar, J.1. The mortgage-bond, on which defendant No. 1 obtained a decree, was executed by one Balwantrao bin Nana Deshmukh as heir of Parvatibai for her debts, and Survey Nos. 159, 160, 161 and 162 belonging to her were mortgaged under the mortgage-deed. According to the compromise in the partition suit of 1896 between the heirs of Parvatibai, Survey No. 159 was allotted to Keshavrao, the plaintiffs' grandfather, free from the mortgage-debt and the liability to pay the mortgage-debt was allotted to the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 6. In execution of the partition decree the plaintiffs got possession of Survey No. 159, The mortgagee was not a party to the partition decree.2. The mortgagee brought a suit on the mortgage in 1914 against the members of the family to enforce the mortgage. The present plaintiffs were defendants Nos. II and 12 in that suit. During the pendency of the suit the mortgagee gave a purshis by which he consented to abide by the decree in the partition suit and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR221
Patkar, J.1. In execution of a decree obtained by opponent No. 3 against opponents Nos. 1 and 2, the property in suit was sold by the Collector on January 16, 1926, to the applicant. The judgment-debtor on January 25 deposited into Court the decretal amount with five per cent, of the purchase money under Order XXI, Rule 89, and on the same day an application, Exhibit 22, was made to the Mamlatdar stating that the amount of Rs. 519-12-0 was deposited into Court and praying that the auction should not be sanctioned. On March 22, 1926, the judgment-debtor applied to the Court to set aside the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application made to the Mamlatdar was really an application for setting aside the sale which ought to have been sent for disposal to the Court, and that the application made to the Court was a continuation of Exhibit 2'J before the Mamlatdar.2. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that, in view of the deposit of the decretal amount on January 25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom330; (1932)34BOMLR634
Blackwell, J.1. On June 27, 1930, the plaintiffs as the holders for value of bills of lading for 27,398 bags of sugar loaded on a ship owned by defendants No. 1 brought this suit to recover from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 damages in respect of a short delivery of 1078 cwts., 2 quarters and 26 lbs. This short delivery is admitted. The suit was also framed in conversion in respect of certain sweepings. That claim and the issues raised thereon were abandoned at the hearing.2. The pleadings as originally framed were defective on both sides, and I allowed certain amendments both of the plaint and of the points of defence in order that all the matters in dispute between the parties might be properly determined.3. The ship arrived on May 4, 1929, and was completely discharged on May 8, 1929. Having regard to Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit against defendants No. 1 was prima facie barred,-the suit not having been brought until June 27, 1930. In order to meet this difficulty the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR463
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this case, the applicant, the defendant bank, claimed to be secured creditors of one Nenchand Rayachand, now an insolvent, by reason of certain provisions in the articles of association of the bank, For instance, Article 14 provides: 'The company shall have a first and paramount lien upon all the shares of any member for all moneys from time to time due or payable to the company from him alone, or jointly with any other person or persons'. It was also given power to sell the shares to satisfy the lien, then, there are other articles! such Sections 141 and 142, which allowed the company to deduct any money due to it from the shareholder out of any dividend or bonus payable to the shareholder.2. Stopping there for a moment, we thinly it clear that the lien given by Article 14 is not confined to the corpus of the shares, but covers as well the produce of the shares, viz., the dividends. Therefore, to that extent, we cannot agree with the judgment of the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom604; (1932)34BOMLR1365
Wadia, J.1. One Haji Gulam Mahomed Ajam died in Bombay on or about March 1, 1928, leaving him surviving as his only heirs, according to the Sunni Mahomedan law, a widow, two sons and three daughters. He left a will dated January 9, 1928, of which he appointed his widow and one of his daughters his executrices. The will, however, has not been proved. The deceased died possessed of moveable and immovable properties of large value in Bombay and in other places. The first suit is a suit for the administration of his estate. The second suit is a mortgage suit filed by the Central Bank of India, Ltd., for the realisation of their security. The deceased was indebted to various creditors at the date of his death, the largest of whom are the Central Bank, Mr. F.E. Dinshaw and Ratanji Virpal, all secured creditors. This summons has been taken out by the executriees of his will, firstly for an order that they may be authorised to obtain from the bank a sum sufficient to pay off the claim of Mr. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.435
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 Glass Magistrate at Bhusawal, and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 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 jambias at Bhusawal. 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 Bhusawal. Oat 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 Section 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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All661
1. Parties to this action are dealers in grain in Mandavi Faizaganj in the city of Meerut. On Jeth Badi 12, Sambat 1982 corresponding to 19th May 1925, the plaintiff-appellant purchased from the defendant-respondent a khatti or grain pit situate in Ahata Sri Ram. The bargain was struck about the purchase of 504 maunds of wheat at the rate of Rs. 5-9-3 per maund. A quarter of the purchase money, Rs. 748-9-6, was paid by way of earnest money. It was a term of the contract that the balance of the purchase money, namely Rs. 2,100,. was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant later upto Phagun Sudi 5, 17th February 1926 in accordance with the custom of the trade which prevailed in the Faizganj market.2. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing and were embodied in two separate documents in printed forms exchanged between the parties. These documents have the curious name of langot. The etymology of the word is not known, but the langot appears to possess the incidents of bough...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!