Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-29-1922
Reported in : AIR1923Bom82; (1922)24BOMLR1284; 76Ind.Cas.115
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 2,000, or such other sum as may be found due on the accounts between them and the defendants, alleging that the plaintiffs had dealings with the defendants extending over a long period commencing in the year 1897. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 formed a joint family and had their business at Belgaum. All the defendants except defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 admitted the plaintiffs claim, but defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 contended that the plaintiffs' claim was out of time. It appears from the plaint that the date of the cause of action was first stated as follows:- 'On July 1, 1916, when the Receiver refused to pay off or in July 1917 when the defendants' shop was closed or in November 1916 i.e. at the end of the commercial year,' But apparently this was scored out and by an amendment the following was substituted for it 'from October 30, 1897, on respective dates on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-11-1922
Reported in : 72Ind.Cas.599
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is by the third accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Tirur, against the conviction and sentence therein. The Public Prosecutor opposes it on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1922 against the conviction, and sentence has already been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts are, that Criminal Appeal No. 395 was presented by the accused under Section 420, Criminal Procedure Code, through the officer in charge of the Jail, where he is, on 6th May 1922, and was dismissed under Section 421, as it was out of time, by Krishnan, J., sitting as Vacation Judge on 2nd June 1922. The accused, presumably in ignorance of this, presented the present appeal on 17th July 1922 on the re-opening of the Court through Counsel. It is not disputed that, unless the decision of 2nd June 1922 can, on some grounds, be disregarded, we are debarred from disposing of the present appeal on the merits.2. We have been asked...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-1922
Reported in : (1923)ILR46Bom605
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether hi re Ramaswami Ayyar (1) was correctly decided.2. This is not a desirable form of reference to a Full Bench, because the facts of one case are seldom precisely the same as those of another and it is much better that the point on which the opinion of the Full Bench is desired should be formulated. In In re Ramaswami Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) Mad 913 a Village Magistrate arrested a drunken man whose conduct was at the time a grave danger to the public. In this case two police constables arrested a man who was drunk and creating disturbance, but to what extent he was a danger to others does not appear in the order of reference. The decision in In re, Ramaswami Ayyar I.L.R (1921) Mad 913 went on the ground that the English Common Law which is 'that for the sake of the preservation of the peace any individual who sees it broken may restrain the liberty of him whom he sees breaking it so long as his conduct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-17-1922
Reported in : AIR1923Bom92; (1922)24BOMLR991
Mulla, J.1. This suit arises out of a contract (Ex. B), dated January 31, 1920, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendants agreed to buy five cases of black and coloured and worsted Venetian at the price of 8 Section 6d. per yard f.b.h. The goods were to be shipped 'in two lots monthly from October approximately.' The suit is to recover the loss on re-sale of two out of the five cases and damages for breach of the contract in respect of the remaining three cases.2. The plaintiffs carry on business as commission agents and merchants in piece goods. The defendants at all times material to this suit carried on business in partnership in piece-goods in the name of Laxmidas Gordhandas. Two out of the said cases arrived in Bombay per s. s. City of London on August 10, 1920. On August 17, 1920, the plaintiff sent an invoice and also shipment samples in respect of the said two cases to the defendants. On September 28, 1920, the plaintiffs sent an invoice and shipment samples in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-22-1922
Reported in : 73Ind.Cas.343; (1923)44MLJ655
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913, was correctly decided,2. This is not a desirable form of reference to a Full Bench, because the facts of one case are seldom precisely the same as those of another and it is much better that the point on which the opinion of the Full Bench is desired should be formulated. In In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913, a Village Magistrate arrested a drunken man whose conduct was at the time a grave danger to the public. In this case two Police Constables arrested a man who was drunk and creating disturbance, but to what extent he was a danger to others does not appear in the order of reference. The decision in In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913 went on the ground that the English Common Law which is ' that for the sake of the preservation of the peace any individual' who sees it broken may restrain the liberty of him whom he sees breaking it so long as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-14-1922
Reported in : AIR1923Bom125; (1922)24BOMLR1140
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 43,125 being the price and other charges of twenty motor cars consigned by plaintiffs from Bombay to the defendants at Amballa under a contract between the parties and destroyed by fire in transit.2. Prior to 1920 there was a firm, named Ford Automobiles, which carried on business in Bombay in Ford cars and accessories. The plaintiffs were registered as a limited company early in 1920 and they purchased the business of the said firm. The plaintiff company is now under liquidation and the present suit is brought by the liquidator of the company in the company's name.3. The defendants carry on business as commission agents at Delhi. It seems that there were some dealings between the defendants and the said firm prior to 1920. In March 1920 the plaintiffs employed the defendants as their commission agents for the sale of Ford motors in Delhi and other places. The terms of the agency contract were arranged between the plaint- inV representative and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-16-1922
Reported in : AIR1922Cal59,67Ind.Cas.177
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference to a Full Bench by my learned brothers Newbould and Suhrawardy, JJ. The questions which are submitted are: 1.When in proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, arising out of an alleged obstruction of a way used by the public, the defendant sets up a claim of right which is found by the Magistrate to be made in good faith, is the Magistrate's jurisdiction entirely ousted?2.Or can the Magistrate, if he does not think this claim well-founded though he considers it made in good faith, allow the defendant a reasonable time to assert this claim by a civil suit and if he does not go to the Civil Court within such time or fails there, can the Magistrate continue the proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code?Was the case of Belat Ali v. Abdur Rahim 8 C.W.N. 143 : 1 Cr. L.J. 70 giving effect to the dictum in Luckhee Narain Banerjee v. Ram Kumar 15 C. 604 at p. 570. 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 960 rightly decided?2. The following fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-19-1922
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR853
Marten, J.1. I have to thank Mr. Little, the solicitor for the applicants, for his interesting and valuable argument in Chamber on a point which is both novel and important. The application is for the issue of a commission to Calcutta for the examination of witnessess in a private arbitration, and the point is whether this Court has any jurisdiction to make the order.2. Now in India parties who wish to resort to arbitration have two alternatives. They can either get the direct assistance of the Court from the outset, or they can arbitrate without the intervention of the Court. In the former case, they can proceed under the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code. In that event the present difficulty would not arise, for under Section 7 of that Schedule the Court would have power to issue the same processes to the parties and witnesses whom the arbitrators desire to examine, as the Court might issue in suits tried before it. Accordingly in Rabiabai v. Rahimabai (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 56...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-19-1922
Reported in : 75Ind.Cas.221
Marten, J.1. I have to thank Mr. Little, the Solicitor for the applicants, for his interesting and valuable argument in Chambers on a point which is both novel, and important. The application is for the issue of a Commission to Calcutta for the examination of witnesses in a private arbitration, and the point is, whether this Court has any jurisdiction to make the order.2. Now, in India parties who wish to resort to arbitration have two alternatives. They can either get the direct assistance of the Court from the outset, or they can arbitrate without the intervention of the Court, In the former case, they can proceed under the Second, Schedule, to the Civil Procedure Code. In that event the present difficulty would not arise, for, under Section 7 of that Schedule, the Court would have power to issue the same processes to the parties and witnesses whom the arbitrators desire to examine, as the Court might issue in suits tried before it. Accordingly, in Rabiabai v. Rahimahai 7 Bom. L.R. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-22-1922
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1167; 76Ind.Cas.433
Marten, J.1. This is a notice of motion by Captain Yanovsky the caveator asking for an order that the decree made in Suit No. 1 of 1922 by my brother Crump on April 25, 1922, may be Bet aside, and that the sale made in pursuance of the said decree be also set aside. The notice of motion states that I have granted an interim injunction against completion of the sale until further order of the Court. That statement is admittedly 'incorrect and should be struck out. All I did was to give leave to serve short notice of motion for last Saturday.2. The suit itself is a curious one. The application is also a curious one : and it bristles with legal points-points which are of interest from an historical aspect and also on the question of our Admiralty Jurisdiction in this Court. It also carries with it points of interest to all of us in this High Court of Bombay, viz, that the various matters arising in the exercise of the Court's extensive jurisdiction should be carried out in a way which is ...
Tag this Judgment!