Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-25-1929
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
Decided on : Sep-19-1929
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR17
Blackwell, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice N. W. Kemp, declaring that the plaintiff was the lawfully wedded wife of defendant No. 1, that the marriage of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2 was void and illegal, and ordering restitution of conjugal rights as between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.2. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The parties to the suit are all Roman Catholics, and the respondent (original plaintiff) and appellant No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) are of Goan domicile. On June 9, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent were betrothed at the Church of Dabul as appears from a certificate of betrothal, Exh. Section On the same day appellant No. 1 wrote a letter, Exh. No. 3, to the Vicar of the Church of Dabul, informing him that he had changed his mind and requesting him to stop the reading of the banns. The Parish priest in consequence did not read the banns, .On June 14, 1928, appellant No. 1 and the respondent went through a civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-1929
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
Decided on : Nov-25-1929
Reported in : AIR1930Bom225; (1930)32BOMLR300
Murphy, J.1. The facts underlying this letters patent appeal are set out in 30 Bom. L.R. 1149, a decision to which I was a party, and which was made on July 3, 1928.2. The respondent had sold the appellant survey No. 108, pot Nos. (1) and (2) of Usmanpur, in the south Dascroi Taluka of the Ahmedabad District, for Rs. 19,000. The title conveyed by the respondent was clouded and litigation ensued between the parties to the transaction. The original Court refused to set the sale aside, but put the parties to terms, the principal ones being that the respondent should return Rs. 1,000 of the price, and execute a conveyance in appellant's favour containing certain indemnity clauses, the conveyance to be executed within two months of the decree, which was made on October 24, 1924. Execution proceedings under this decree were initiated on December 2, 1924. While they were still pending and after Rs. 1,000 and the sum due for costs had been paid into Court and received by the appellant, as to t...
Tag this Judgment!