Mumbai Court November 1876 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pranshankar Shivshankar Vs. Govindhlal Parbhudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom467
1. The Court is of opinion that the suit will not lie. An action is not maintainable for damages occasioned by a civil action, even though brought maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause (see Addison on Wrongs, p. 599, 3rd edition); neither will a suit lie to recover costs awarded by a Civil Court, though it may lie for costs., which could not be so awarded: Chengulva Raya Mudali v. Thangatchi Ammal (6 Mad. H.C. Rep. 192)....
Reg Vs. Vithaldas Pranjivandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom462
Bayley, J.1. The objection having now been taken, must, after the short consideration I have been able to give it, I think, be allowed. Section 33 of the High Courts Criminal Procedure Act (X of 1875) enacts that 'The jury shall consist of nine persons, who shall be chosen by lot from the persons summoned to act as jurors.'2. Section 39 enacts that, save as therein provided, the High Courts shall retain all their present powers respecting the summoning empannelling; qualification, challenging and service of jurors, and shall have power to make such rules on these subjects (consistent with the provisions of the Act) as seem to them to be proper; and that 'all rules relating to jurors now in force in the same High Courts shall (so far as they are consistent with this Act) remain in force until repealed or altered by new rules made under this section.'3. The rule as to ballotting for petty juries, which was made in 1842, is to be found at p. 155 of the Collection of Rules and Orders of th...
Govind Ragunath Vs. Govinda Jagoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom500
1. We are of opinion that the Assistant Judge was wrong in throwing out this claim on the ground that the assignment to the plaintiff was invalid. Upon a sale in execution of a decree the property in the thing sold passes to the purchaser, and we know of nothing in either the Hindu or the English law which debars a third person from taking an assignment of such property from the auction-purchaser, albeit it had not been reduced into possession. This is not the case of a speculative claim, such as this Court has refused to recognize, and we are unable to concur in the view taken by the Assistant Judge that the sale of such a title is 'against policy and justice and tending to promote unnecessary litigation.' We reverse the decree of the lower Court, and return the case in order that the claim may be disposed of on the merits. Costs to follow final decision....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›