Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR1391
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated March 14, 1922, of the High Court at Madras, which was made in its appellate civil jurisdiction and varied as decree, dated October 20, 1920, of a Judge of the same Court, which was made in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.2. The appeal arises in a suit which was instituted with the leave of the High Court on Februarys, 1919, in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court by the plaintiffs, who live in the city of Madras, to obtain a decree against Les Tanneries Lyonnaises and their agent Monsieur J. Marret for money alleged to be due to the plaintiffs under a contract for the sale and delivery of goat skins under a contract of May 25, 1917, and under a contract of January 26, 1918, for the sale and delivery of sheep skins. There was another defendant to the suit named, C, Sowrimuthoerya Oodayar, against whom no relief was claimed. The suit was tried and the decree of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR361; 101Ind.Cas.582
Patkar, J.1. In this case the petitioner Pestanji Ratanji Dabu and Company of Surat took an Ijara Patta from the original deceased defendant Ranjitsangji Sursangji, Chieftain of Sansthan Kathi in Mewas, West Khandesh District, for the cutting of a forest in 1919 for Rs. 85,000. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Mewas Agent, who is the Collector of West Khandesh, against Ranjitsangji to recover Rs. 21,000 with costs and rupees one lac for damages. Certain preliminary issues were decided by the Mewas Agent on December 23, 1924, and Ranjitsangji filed civil revisional application No. 163 of 1925 in the High Court. In that application a Rule was issued by this Court on June 15, 1925, and was discharged with costs on February 10, 1926.2. Ranjitsangji died, and the Collector of West Khandesh as representing the Court of Wards was substituted in his place as his legal representative.3. On July 8, 1926, the petitioner applied to the Mewas Agent that he himself in his capacity as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom278; (1927)29BOMLR498
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The first and principal question of the five questions submitted to this Full Bench is : 'Whether a suit brought by a mortgagee of land to enforce his mortgage by sale is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.' It will be noticed that the question has been deliberately confined to enforcing a mortgage by sale. That is the relief asked for in the present suit, and that is the relief ordinarily asked for on the Original Side. Indeed it was even said during the hearing that many Judges in this Court have refused to grant foreclosure at all. And personally I do not remember any case in which I was asked to pass a foreclosure decree, although I must have had hundreds of mortgage suits before me at various times during the last ten years.2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent runs as follows :-And we do further ordain that the, said High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom643; (1927)29BOMLR1511
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal relates to the amount of duty payable under the Court Fees Act, 1870, Article 11 of Schedule I, as amended by Bombay Act III of 1926, which came into force on April 1, 1926. Stated shortly, the Court fee in question may be described as probate duty.2. The point at issue between the parties is whether the amount of the duty ought to be calculated at the rate in force under the law as it stood at the date of the petition for probate, or whether it should be calculated at the higher rate of duty which came into operation before any grant of probate was made.3. The petitioner is the executor of the will of the deceased Shamdas Hiranand who died on December 3, 1923, and he has paid the sum of Rs. 28,439 for duty at or prior to his petition being presented and filed on February 24, 1926. If, however, the amending Act of 1926 applies, then additional duty to the extent of about Rs. 18,861 is payable. A difference having arisen between the Testamentary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom522; (1928)30BOMLR1455
Fawcett Ag. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover Rs. 5,368-13-6 as due on a mortgage passed by the defendants. The mortgage is not disputed; nor is the claim, except in regard to the compound interest fixed by the bond being excessive and the bond therefore unconscionable, and in regard to the liability of the defendants to pay the interest claimed for the period prior to February 1, 1923. The Subordinate Judge held that the agreement to pay compound interest at twelve annas per cent, per month was not unconscionable. It is to be noted that the parties are both traders and money lenders, and there was nothing which showed that there was anything in the nature of undue influence or pressure put upon the defendants when they agreed to pay such compound interest. In my opinion nothing has been shown that would justify our differing from the lower Court's view on this point.2. Therefore, there remains only the question about interest prior to February 1, 1923. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR129
Binod Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree dated April 27, 1926, of the Chief Court of Oudh, affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh dated April 22, 1924. The litigation relates to properties originally owned by one Rajah Ajit Singh, who died on December 18, 1889, having devised and bequeathed those properties to Rajah Partab Bahadur Singh by his will dated November 6, 1884. Rajah Partab Bahadur Singh died on June 18, 1921.2. The principal question for determination in the present appeal is whether on the true construction of the said will Partab took a life interest or an absolute interest in the property devised by the said will. The appellants (who are the heirs of Raja Ajit Singh) claimed to be entitled to the property in dispute in this appeal on the footing that Partab took only a life interest under the said will, and the respondents 4 to 9, who are devisees or transferees of or from Partab, contend that Partab took an absolute interest under the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom267; (1930)32BOMLR87
Madgavkar, J.1. These applications raise an important question as to the right of a company to revoke a resolution of forfeiture and to call for the amount due on the shares.2. The plaintiff petitioner in all the applications is the Bhagirath Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited, Jalgaon, East Khandesh. The defendants-opponents are various persons, who applied for shares and to whom shares wore allotted. In one ease a defence of misrepresentation was set up resting on the alleged failure of the company to supply the defendants with a prospectus after application and allotment. That ground has been negatived in the trial Court and need not, therefore, be considered.3. The facts common to all the applications areas follows: In April 1925, the defendants-opponents applied for shares along with the application money and were allotted these shares. In August and November 1925 and in March 1926, the directors passed three resolutions for calls. Calls were issued accordingly an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR675
Madgavkar, J. 1. This application raises a question of some importance under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On September 25, 1930, a disturbance took place at Chirner, thirteen miles from Panvel, forty-seven accused were sent up before the Magistrate, and on January 31, 1931, were committed by him for trial before the Sessions Court of Thana under Sections 120B(1), 147, 148, 149, 224, 302, 332, 379, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial would have taken place at Thana with a jury.2. On February 12, 1931, the following notification, No. 8252-2 dated February 5, 1931, was published in the Bombay Government Gazette-Under Section 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), the Governor in Council is pleased to direct that Mr. N.R. Gundil, LL.B., Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, shall try the case known as the Chirner Riot Case, which has been committed to the Sessions by Mr. R.R. Sonalkar, a Magistrate of the First Class in the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR1106
Baker, J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against two orders passed by a single Judge rejecting the application of the applicant for revision of an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, and for excuse of delay in filing a petition.2. The facts of this case are rather peculiar. The applicant filed a suit in forma pauperis in 1910 for partition against his bhaubands. The suit was contested by his nephews and by certain alienees of part of the family property. The suit was referred to arbitration, and an award was passed on September 2, 1913 ultimately followed by a decree in terms of the award on July 31, 1916. Against that decree First Appeal No. 41 of 1917 with Civil Revision Application No. 330 of 1916 was made to the High Court by the plaintiff to set aside the award. The award was ultimately set aside on August 12,1919. Defendant No. 1 applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The leave was refused on July 10,1922. The record wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR663
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of Vadilal who was charged under Section 61 (f) of the Bombay District Police Act, IV of 1890.2. The facts are short and simple. In the city of Ahmedabad, there is a public street and a highway along which, on the south, Vadilal and other dealers in brass and copper utensils have their shops. On the first five days of the new year at Divali it has been customary for him and for other shopkeepers there to bring out their wares on to the public road, and we are informed by the learned counsel for Vadilal, that it is considered auspicious by Hindus to purchase new vessels on these days. The result is a crowd which caused detriment to the traffic on the southern side of the street. There had been general notices by the District Magistrate; Ahmedabad, against the user of streets for fairs and such purposes. Years ago, the Municipality instituted prosecutions similar to the present but subsequently withdrew t...
Tag this Judgment!