Mumbai Court September 1882 Judgments
Navivahoo Vs. Narotamdas Candas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom5
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made on the 14th May, 1882, by Mr. Justice Bayley, committing the appellant to prison for contempt of Court in not obeying an order of 23rd December, 1881, by which she was ordered to produce certain cash books and ledgers for the inspection of the respondent. A preliminary objection was taken that an appeal would not lie against the order. It was said that Section 591 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act X) of 1877 provides that no appeal should lie from any order passed by any Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction except as provided in chapter XLIII and that the order in question is not to be found amongst those enumerated in Section 588 from which an appeal is given. This would be true if the order in question had Seen passed in the, exercise of its original civil jurisdiction; for that, we apprehend, must be the meaning of original jurisdiction in a Code of Civil Procedure. Contempts, however, are in the nature o...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Tucker,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom42
Kemball, J.1. This is an application for our interference under the special powers given, us by Section 147 of the High Court's Criminal Procedure Code (X of. 1875), no appeal being allowed by law: see Sections 167 and 180 of the Presidency Magistrates Act (IV of 1877). The accused appear to have been convicted under two sections of the Penal Code (sections 151 and 188), apparently, therefore, of two separate offences, the gist of each, however, being the same, viz., disobedience of lawful commands, though but one sentence has been passed, and that of almost a nominal character--a fine of Rs. 50 being inflicted in the case of Mr. Tucker and Rs. 25 upon the other two,--and the only question which we have to consider is whether a sufficient case has been made out on the merits to induce us to suppose that there has been a failure of justice. With reference to the charge under Section 151 of the Indian Penal Code it has been argued that there was no assembly, there being merely the three ...
Tag this Judgment!Tatia and ors. Vs. Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom40
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The District Judge was wrong in holding that mere non-payment of rent was sufficient to constitute adverse possession: Dadoba v. Krishna Supra p. 34; Rungo Lall Mundul v. Abdul Guffoor I.L.R. 4 Calc. 314. The decree must, therefore, be reversed, except, as to damages, which must be varied by substituting five rupees on account of moveables in the house for rupees twenty, and plaintiff's claim must be rejected (except as aforesaid) with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Ragho Govind Parajpe Vs. Balvant Amrit Gole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom101
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The important question, in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property in question without also paying the amount of a simple contract debt owing to the mortgagee by the original mortgagor from whom the plaintiff derives his title. It was admitted for the appellant that the original mortgagor, Krishnarav, could have redeemed without paying it; but it was contended that the conveyance to the plaintiff, Balvant (exhibit 2), under which he derives his title, was a voluntary conveyance, and that, as Krishnarav had by that instrument made over all his property to plaintiff in his lifetime with the obligation of paying all his debts, the Court ought to allow the mortgagee to tack on the debt in question to avoid circuity of actions on the same principle as by English law a mortgagee is entitled to take on a simple contract debt as against executors or volunteers under the mortgagor: Rolfe v. Chester 20 Beav. 610. It was also slid that t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrav Deshpande Vs. Ramrav Deshande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom151
Melvill, J.1. The arbitration award of 1838 (exhibit No. 2), Which was assented to by the ancestors of the parties, provided that Narsinh Khanderav should continue to hold the deshpande vatan, and should pay an increased allowance to the plaintiff's father and two uncles. The plaintiff's case is that the allowance so fixed is payable in perpetuity, and he accordingly sues to recover it by virtue of the award. Assuming, but by no means deciding, that the ancestor of one of the parties had power to bind his descendants to pay a fixed allowance in perpetuity, and that the ancestors of the other party had power to bind their descendants to be content with such allowance, however their circumstances might alter, yet we do not think that we should be hasty to assume such an intention, and we certainly find no trace of it in the arbitration award. The award shows that there already existed an arrangement, which, as stated in Shidojirav v. Naikojirav 10 Bom. H.C. 228 is a common one in deshpan...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Bawa Alias Bhau Bawa Vs. Narayan Bawa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom188
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. It is not in dispute between the parties that the lands in question were originally granted in 1815 to one Baloba Bawa and his descendants for the purpose of maintaining the worship of the God (Shri Vithoba Dev) of a temple. In 1866 a suit was brought by plaintiff's father, Vithoba, one of Baloba's sons, against Hari (another son of Baloba) and his son, the first defendant, to enforce his claim to one-third share of the management of the lands. In this suit Vithoba obtained a decree that he should have the exclusive management every third year, but he was ordered to pay costs. To enforce payment of his costs, Hari Bawa, in execution of the above decree, attached the one-third share of Vithoba in the management of the lands, which was sold at auction to a Marwadi in January, 1870, for 160 rupees, and afterwards re-sold to the second defendant, Trimbak, another son of Hari, in May, 1870, for 200 rupees. The 160 rupees were more than sufficient to pay the cost...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Shaligram Vs. Malhari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom106
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree on 29th June, 1881, directing that he do recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 60 payable in three annual instalments, each defendant to be liable for half of each instalment, with all costs on the defendants. The plaintiff obtained warrant of arrest against the defendants on 23rd September, 1881, for the amount of the costs, under which the defendant, Malhari, was arrested and brought before the Court on 12th October, 1881. The next day he was discharged at the request of the plaintiff. The first instalment became due on 17th May, 1882, and the plaintiff now seeks to recover it by arrest and imprisonment from both defendants. The questions referred to us are:1. Whether in the execution of an instalment decree, the judgment-debtor can be arrested and imprisoned separately for default in the payment of each instalment?2. If he can be, whether in limiting the term of imprisonment, the amount of the particular ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasonbhoy Visram and ors. Vs. H. Clapham Owner; J. Henderson Master of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom51
Latham, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs are the firm of Visram Ebrahim & Co.; the first defendant is the owner and the second defendant the master of the steam-ship Hutton; and the remaining defendants are the members of the firm of Messrs. Finlay, Muir & Co., by which name it will be convenient to designate them collectively. The suit springs out of a charter-party of the Hutton, dated September 20, 1880, and signed by Finlay, Muir & Co. as agents for master and owners, whereby the Hutton was chartered to one Essa Ahmed for a term of not less than three or more than four months at Rs. 15,000. per month, payable fortnightly in advance, commencing at a future date which turned out to be either the 19th or 20th of October, 1880. By a, memorandum dated the 1'st December, 1880, the time was extended to between the 10th and 20th of March, 1881; and on the 25th February, 1881, by another memorandum it was further extended to the 30th of March, 1881; and by an endorsement on the charter-part...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›