Mumbai Court March 1883 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.
Empress Vs. Bhagvan Bhivsan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom379
1. Act XIII of 1859 is not intended to apply to a contract of service such as that which the accused entered into, in this case. He stipulated that, in consideration of receiving Rs. 45, he bound himself to render service for agricultural and other purposes for the period of one year. The order of the First Class Magistrate is, therefore, reversed; and, if the Rs. 20 has already been paid to the complainant the Court directs that it should be paid back to the accused....
Empress Vs. Bhagvanta Ravji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom303
Kemball, J.1. The District Magistrate is in the opinion of the Court, right. The powers conferred originally on Rav Saheb Moro Raghunath Bivalkar were those of a 2nd Class Magistrate. Since the passing of the new Code those powers, whatever they may be, must be taken, by virtue of Section 2 of the new Code, to have been conferred by the new Code. This was obviously enacted to avoid the inconvenience of re-appointing officers on the repeal of the old Code; but the provisions of Section 2 were not intended to continue to 2nd Class Magistrates a jurisdiction which the new law expressly says they shall not exercise except, they are specially empowered so to do....
Francis John RaffIn and ors. Vs. the Steam Ship Chilka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom196
Scott, J.1. This is a salvage suit instituted by the captain, officers and crew of the steam ship Henry Bolckow against the steam ship Chilka and her freight.2. The Henry Bolckow is as crew steamer of 689 tons net register and 99 horse power. The Chilka is a vessel of 1,497 tons register and 200 horse power belonging to the British India Steam Navigation Company, of whom the defendants in this suit are the agents in Bombay. The Chilka was chartered last autumn by the Secretary of State for India to convey troops and stores to Egypt, and left Bombay on the 28th August, 1882, for Suez with 133 camp followers, 234 mules, and a crew of 101 all told.3. On the 3rd September, at 8-15 P.M., her machinery broke down. The fact is thus recorded in her log-book: 'Shaft broken in stern-tube and unable to turn ahead or astern.' She was then ninety-six miles from Ras Fartak, the nearest point on the Arabian coast, in lat. 14-9 N., long. 52-49 E.4. She fired guns, sent up rockets, displayed signals of...
Dundaya Vs. Chenbasapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom427
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. Both the parties to this suit claim through three brothers, Ningapa, Dhulapa and Chenbasapa The plaintiff by a registered] deed mortgaged to secure Rs. 250, dated 19th September 1877, and defendant by an unregistered deed of sale for less than Rs. 100, dated the 1st April 1877. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff's registered deed must prevail, having regard to Section 50, Act III of 1877. Defendant by his written statement pleaded that he had been put into possession at the time of the sale to him, and bad since occupied as owner; and it has been argued before us that, assuming that to have been so, the plaintiff would not be entitled to priority.2. It must be taken, we think, as settled law in this Presidency that a subsequent registered purchaser or mortgagee is not to be preferred against a prior unregistered 'purchase or mortgage of which he had notice-Shiuram v. Genu I.L.R. 6 Bom. 515), and, further, that, possession by, or a registration of the ...
Hari Narayan Brahme Vs. Ganpatrav Daji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom272
Kemball, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara, rejecting the plaintiff's suit on the ground that its subject-matter was res judicata. The claim was for the partition of the village of Saspade, alleged to be undivided ancestral property, and one of the defences raised by defendants 2 and 3 (who alone appeared) was, that there had already been decrees for the partition of some of the family property viz., the villages of Bhawadi and Pangari, in suits brought by each of them separately against their deceased brother, the plaintiff's grandfather, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Poona, and that the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to prosecute his present claim.2. The law of res judicata is contained in Section 13, Act X of 1877; but the matter in issue in the present suit was obviously not heard and finally decided by the Poona Court, unless it can be said to have been constructively in issue in the former suits under the p...
Pandu BIn Nathaji Vs. Devji BIn Nathaji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom287
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The only question which we have to consider is whether we should allow the appellant to withdraw this second appeal, in order that he may apply to the lower Court for a review of judgment, on the ground of the discovery of new evidence.2. We should feel more difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Civil Procedure Code sanctions this course, if it were not for the decisions of this Court in Nanabhai v. Nathabhai 9 Bom. H.C. R 89 and in Narayan v. Davudbhai 9 Bom. H.C. R 238. These decisions have been followed by a uniform practice in accordance with them, and this practice ought not, we think, to be lightly disturbed, more especially as it was established to prevent obvious hardship and injustice. It is true that there is a slight difference in the wording of the old law as contained in Section 376 of Act VIII of 1859 and in that of Section 623 of Act X of 1877. The former section allowed a person to apply for a review of a decree of a District Court...
Empress Vs. Mhasnya Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom280
Melvil, J.1. We think, as at present advised, that the Legislature, when it enacted in Section 13 of Act XIX of 1888 that persons who committed certain acts should be 'subject to a fine of ten times the amount of fees', or 'subject to a fine of ten rupees' intended that the penalties specified should be inflicted in full'. Had the penalties so specified been intended as a maximum, with a discretion to the Magistrate to inflict a smaller fine, we think that the phraseology would have been different; and that it would have been enacted that the offender should be subject, not to a fine of a specified amount, but to a fine not exceeding such any such vessel employed as aforesaid, fishing vessel, or harbour craft shall make such default as aforesaid: provided every such subsequent default be made after the expiration of one month from the date of the last conviction specified amount. Such is the phraseology of contemporaneous enactments, e.g., Act XXVII of 1837, Sections 10 and. 11, and Ac...
Edulji Muncherji Wacha Vs. Vullebhoy Khanbhoy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom167
West, J.1. I should like to have some authority to guide me in deciding this question, and it is strange, considering the multitude of partnership cases in the English reports, that no case upon the point appears to be forthcoming. The present application is made under Section 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that parties may be added or transposed as may be necessary 'to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.' These questions, of course, in an ordinary suit arise on the allegations made by the plaintiff, and prima facie it would appear that if the plaintiff withdraws, the allegations are withdrawn, and no question remains for the Court to decide. But a partnership suit is a suit of a peculiar character, and the parties to such a suit do not stand to each other precisely in the same relation as parties to suits generally. Each of the parties to a partnership suit, however he may be formally ranked,...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›