Mumbai Court July 1885 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.
Bachubai and L.A. Watkins Vs. Shamji Jadowji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom536
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the widow of a deceased partner in the firm of Vunmalidass, Jagjivan, Shaniji and Company to recover a share in the profits-made by that firm since the death of her husband, which took place on the 30th November, 1882.2. The firm in question was formed in the year 1873 with the view of obtaining the agency of The New Great Eastern Spinning and Weaving Company, limited. The firm originally consisted of three partners, viz., Vunmalidaass Jiva, Jagjivan Hemji, and the defendant, Shamji Jadowji, who were to divide the profits between them according to the terms of the partnership agreement, which by one clause, (the 4th), provided that the agency to the company was to be obtained for thirty years, and by another clause, (the 11th), provided that, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the partnership within that period by the death or by the retirement of any partner, such partner should have a right or nominating a successor. By this claus...
Queen Empress Vs. Gujria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom568
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The District Magistrate to be informed that the opening of a new external door is an external alteration of the building in which the door is opened, and that such an act done without the notice to the municipality, contemplated by Section 33 of Bombay Act VI of 1873, is an offence punishable under Section 74 of that Act; but as the act complained of in this case is not alleged to have caused any inconvenience to anybody, we reduce the sentence to the nominal fine of one anna only. The difference between the fine originally levied and the induced fine to be repaid to the accused....
Dosibai, Widow of Jehangirshah Ardesir Vs. Ishwardas Jagjivandas and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom561
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The real question to be determined in this case is, whether Ardesir Dhanjishah could alienate the four villages in question granted to him by the sanad of 22nd September, 1830, beyond the period of his life. The sanad is as follows: 'In consideration of the active and zealous performance of the duties entrusted to him by Government the Honourable the Governor in Council hereby gives and, betows upon Ardesir Bahadur, son of Dhanjishah, and his heirs for ever as jaghir, the following four villages-Bhestan and Sonari in the Chorasi Pargana, Kumwada and Boriach in the Chikhli Pargana' in the zilla of Surat, with the jama and moglai of the same-now yielding an average net sum of rupees two thousand nine hundred and ninety-two, one quarter, and ninety-six reas (Rs. 2,992-1-96). The revenue of the said villages hereafter, whether more or less, to be collected, by the said Ardesir Bahadur and his heirs from the 5th June, 1830, and such lawazims and haks as are at presen...
In Re: Rakhmaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom558
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. It appears to the Court that the peon in this case was not only not acting in the execution of his duty as a public servant, but apparently in contravention of section, 374, Indian Penal Code; and, therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, ought to be set aside, unless the rules at pages 26 and 27 of Nairne's Hand-Book (3rd ed.) have the force of law, and the proceedings were taken lawfully under them. Notice to be given to the Government Pleader to enable him to ascertain under what law the above rules were made. Record the proceedings to be shown to him.2. That was accordingly done, and the Government Pleader, having received instructions to appear for the Grown, did so on the 6th July, 1885.3. Hon. V.N. Mandlik for the Crown.-The sepoy was not seizing the cart for his use, but under order from the settlement officer. The rules or executive orders printed at pp. 26 and 27 of Mr. Nairne's Revenue Hand-Book justify such seizur...
Gopalrao Ganesh Vs. Kishor Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom527
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Assistant Judge has disposed of this case in lavour of the defendant on two grounds: (1), that, assuming defendant to have been plaintiff's tenant, he could not be ejected without notice.2. That the evidence was, in his opinion, strongly in favour of defendant's proprietary right.3. As the defendant has throughout denied the plaintiff's title the plaintiff would be under no obligation to prove notice, supposing it to be established that defendant was his tenant. See Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, (11th ed.), p. 325; Doe d. Trustees of the Bedford Charity v. Payne 7 Q.B. 287; Vivian v. Moat 16 Ch. Div. 730.4. As to the opinion expressed by the Assistant Judge in favour of defendant's proprietary title, it is accompanied by no reasons, and cannot be accepted as a conclusive finding-Krishnarav Yash-vant v. Vasudev Apaji Gholikar I.L.R. 8 Bom. 371. We must, therefore, reverse the decree, and send the case back for a fresh decision. Costs of appeal to abide the...
In Re: Limda Koya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom556
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. In prosecutions under Section 43 of the Bombay Abkari Act'; V of 1878, a presumption under Section 53 of the Act, no doubt arises that the person found in possession of such materials 'as are ordinarily used in the manufacture of liquor' was in possession of them for the' purpose of manufacturing liquor [section 43, Clause (f)]. But such a presumption under that section arises only when the accused is 'unable to account satisfactorily'' for his possession of them.2. In the present case it appears, from the Appellate Court's judgment, that the accused is a dealer in mowra flowers, and the only act found against him is that of having sold the mowra flowers to Khushal Vajiria, who made an illegal use of them. It is not alleged that he has used such flowers for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. Being a dealer, his possession, of mowra flowers in the course of his business is satisfactorily accounted for. The presumption, therefore, under Section 53 cannot be said ...
Nandram Motiram Vs. Kacha Bhau and Sarupchand Motiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom526
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Court, having given the purchaser a certificate of sale is under no obligation to gives him another for the sole purpose of evading the penalty, which he has incurred by not having presented in the first instance to the Court a paper properly stamped for it....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›