Mumbai Court December 1887 Judgments
In Re: the Application of Sheshamma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom276
1. The question depends on the construction of the words of Act I of 1879, Schedule II, 1(b) 'for the immediate purpose of being used Or filed in any Court, or before the officer of any Court.' The mere fact that it suited the convenience of the party making the affidavit to make it at Sirsi, instead of going for that purpose to the Court at Karwar, where she purposed to file it, does not, we think, take the instance out of the words or the intention which may reasonably be imputed to the Legislature.2. 'When a statute requires that something shall be done 'forthwith,' or 'immediately,' or even 'instantly,' it would probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it'-Maxwell on Statutes, p. 423, (2nd ed.) See Toms v. Wilson 32 L.J., Q.B.,. 33 Massey v. Sladen L.R., 4 Ex. 13 and Forsdike v. Stone L.R., 3 C.P. 607 . The last case shows that the test is whether, under the circumstances, there was such unreasonable delay as would be inconsistent with what is meant by 'immedi...
Tag this Judgment!The Machine Exchange Company, Limited, in Liquidation Vs. Rustomji Fra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom311
Scott, J.1. These claims are brought by the liquidator of the Machine Exchange Company to place Shapurji Byramji Katruk and Rustomji Framji Wadia on the list of the contributories of that company, and as regards the shares for which they subscribed the memorandum of association. The company was registered on 18th January, 1887, and wound up this year.2. This case involves two questions: one of law and one of fact. I propose to deal with the point of law first. The signatories of the memorandum of association are held liable under the Indian Companies' Act (Section 45) which is as follows: 'They shall be deemed to have agreed to become members of the company whose memorandum they have subscribed, and,' the Act goes on to say, 'shall be entered as members on the register of members when the company has been registered.' This section is taken verbatim from the English Act, and a long series of English decisions has decided that when a person signs a memorandum of association for any numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Lakshman and ors. Vs. Vithal Ravji Renge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom625
Parsons, J.1. We see no reason to dissent from the Subordinate Judge's finding that the mortgages of the plaintiff's, share of certain thikans by his father cannot be upheld. The plaintiff has proved that the debts were contracted for immoral purposes within the knowledge of the lenders. The alienations, therefore, cannot be held good as against the plaintiffs two-annas' share in those thikans, in respect of which only he seeks to set them aside. The case, however, of those appellant-defendants who purchased at auction-sales stands on a different footing. The Subordinate Judge has disallowed their claims as against the plaintiff's share in the lands sold merely on the ground that the sales were made in execution of decrees for debts contracted by his father for immoral purposes. But, in dealing with this part of the case, the Subordinate Judge has not considered the question whether the purchasers had notice that the debts were so contracted. We think that, as regards such purchasers, ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Byramji Edalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom437
1. In this case, the applicant has been found guilty of committing public nuisance, as defined in Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been punished under Section 290.2. On the occasion of his giving a dinner-party, he cut up the meat that was to be cooked for the dinner in the verandah (otla) of his house, and so exposed it to the sight of persons passing along the road, among whom were some Jains, whose temple is near the house. They complained to the Magistrate that by this act the applicant 'had made the air offensive, and created an annoying sight.' The Magistrate has not found that the meat was in an offensive state, but he has convicted the applicant of committing a public nuisance, on the ground that he had done an act by which several persons, being Jains, were much annoyed, it being a well-known fact, that they (the Jains) have great repugnance to the killing of animals of every sort.3. Now it has been held that, in order to constitute a nuisance, there must be 'not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›