Mumbai Court August 1887 Judgments
In Re: Howard
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1887
Reported in: (1889)ILR12Bom167
West, J.1. It appears from the decision of the Magistrate in disposing of the case, though the matter is not brought out with absolute clearness, that he was under the impression that when a previous publication of the alleged defamatory matter had occurred, the subsequent republication could not properly be made the subject of prosecution until that course had been taken with regard to the earlier publication. This, however, is not law. The Indian Penal Code makes no exception in favour of a second or third publication as compared with a first and such an exception would obviously be made a means of defeating the principal provision of the law of defamation. In England it is not allowed to a defendant to prove that a statement, similar to the one for which he is indicted, has been previously published by persons who have not been prosecuted (see Reg. v. Holt 8 Cox. C.C. 411 ); and the repetition of a common rumour, however prevalent, is not received as an excuse for its further promul...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay United Merchants' Company, Limited Vs. Doolubram Sakulchand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom50
Farran, J.1. The facts in this case, except in details which appear to me of but little importance, are not really in dispute. The plaintiffs are a company whose business is to receive indents in Bombay, order out goods from Europe to fulfil such indents, and deliver such goods to the indentors in Bombay. The defendants for some time prior to the transaction in question dealt with the plaintiffs' company. On the 7th August, 1885, the defendant signed one of the plaintiffs' usual indent forms, by which he commissioned the plaintiffs to order for their account from Europe, to be shipped as soon as possible by any steamer and subject to certain printed conditions, the following goods: 100 bundles, each weighing about 5 cwts.-equal to 500 cwts.-copper braziers, assorted in a certain manner set out in the indent, at 53-5 per ton, free on board, Bombay harbour. The first condition provided for the reference of any disputes as to quality or condition of the goods to arbitration. The next rela...
Tag this Judgment!Motivahoo and anr. Vs. Vinayak Veerchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom1
Hart, C.J. 1. 'I am unable to concur unreservedly. Though I felt and still feel doubt as to the correctness of my original judgment, yet as all the points suggested by the learned Second Judge were present to my mind and considered by me before delivering it, I think the best course would be for me to adhere to it, and obtain the opinion of the High Court on a reference which I should have been willing to make in the first instance had I been asked to do so.2. 'The doubt which most pressed me was that which apparently most influenced the Second Judge in arriving at a contrary result, viz., that the reported cases in which the purchaser was held to his bargain seem to be cases in which what was sold was a defective title, whereas here it is no title. But this seems to me a question of degree only, not of principle. If the purchaser is bound by the condition to pay for whatever the vendor can give, I apprehend the principle is the same whether what can be given is all or a good deal or l...
Tag this Judgment!Hormusji Navroji Vs. Bai Dhanbaiji, Jamsetji Dosabhai, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom164
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question in this case arises upon a refusal of the District Judge to grant probate of the will of one Shapurji Nasarwanji to Hormusji Navroji, on the ground that the bequests contained in it are illegal and void. The probate is only conclusive as to the appointment of executors and the validity and the contents of the will-Williams on Executors, p. 452 (4th ed.); and on the application for probate it is not the province of the Court to go into the question of title, with reference to the property of which the will purports to dispose, or the validity of such disposition-Behary Lall Sandyal v. Juggo Mohun Gossain, I.L.R., 4 Cal 1 2. But it has been contended that as Hormusji was cited on Dosabhai's second application for letters of administration in 1882, the grant of administration to him cannot now be revoked. It appears, however, that when those proceedings were commenced, and when Hormusji was cited, Hirabai, who was the executrix named in the will (Hormu...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Vs. Narayan Alias Sambhoji, a Minor, by His Guardian Chimabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom427
West, J.1. The decree in this case having been obtained against the infant Narayan, son of Babaji, represented in the case by his mother Chimabai, the judgment-creditor in 1880 sought execution for the costs awarded to him by the decree. Through error, however he sought that execution against Chimabai herself, instead of merely as guardian of her son. There was another application in 1883, against Narayan, but nothing Was done on it. It would prevent the bar of limitation if the earlier application could be considered as a sufficient one for the purposes of Act XV of 1877, Schedule II, Article 179, but not otherwise. The District Judge has thought that the earlier application was not to be taken into account at all; but, having regard to the case of The General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga under the Court of Wards v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh 14 M I.A., 605 we are of opinion that the mortgagor need not and ought not to be deprived of the fruit of his decree on account of the techn...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Gopal Vs. Gokaldas Kushaba Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom158
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued in ejectment as the manager of the undivided family of the deceased Gopal Yadneshwar, to recover possession of the land mentioned in the plaint. The defendant by his written statement took the objection that the other members of the family, mentioning more particularly a minor brother and uncle of plaintiff, should be made parties to the suit. An issue was framed, raising the question whether plaintiff could sue alone. The Subordinate Judge held that the manager of a Hindu family could institute and defend suits on behalf of the family. The lower Court of appeal held that he could not do so without conforming to the provisions of Section 30 of the Code. That section enables (with the permission of the Court) one of several persons having the same interest in a suit to sue on behalf of all, by giving notice through the Court to all the parties concerned, in manner therein mentioned, and where the party suing does not, in the eye of...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Atmaram Vs. Santai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom270
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Judge says that 'it was incumbent on the defendant to show that the transaction (viz., the alleged sale to plaintiff) was altogether a fictitious one.' This view is, however, opposed to the ruling in Tillakchand Hindumal v. Jitamal Sudaram 10 Bom, H.C. R 206 as explained in Rajan Harji v. Ardeshir Hormusji Wadia I.L.R., 4 Bom. 74 . The defendant had obtained an order maintaining his attachment, and it was incumbent on the plaintiff, who impugns that order by the present suit, to prove her case. For this purpose it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove the payment of the purchase-money, and that she had since been in possession.2. As the Judge has considered the evidence from a wrong point of view, we cannot accept his conclusion on the question whether the sale to the plaintiff was a real transaction, and must reverse the decree, and send back the case to the lower Court of appeal for a fresh decision. Costs of this appeal to be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Dadapa Vs. Vishnudas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom424
West, J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge determined that the transaction on the part of the present appellant amounted to an unfair preference, and as such, disentitled him to the benefit of Section 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882). The ground for his decision was that the bond for Its. 600 passed to Gokuldas four days before the decree against the appellant of itself constituted an unfair preference, and was one which put Gokuldas in a more advantageous position as compared with the other creditors.2. It is clear that his passing that mortgage-bond to Gokuldas, instead of letting the latter wait for the distribution of his assets under the insolvency rules, gave Gokuldas a preference; and, prima facie, it was an unfair advantage given to him over the other creditors.3. It has been argued at much length that there was no unfair or fraudulent preference shown; and Mr. Shamrav Vithal on behalf of the appellant has relied upon a decision in Joakim v. The Secretary of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Ramchandra Minor by His Guardian Vs. Bhimacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom105
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is a suit by the guardian of the posthumous son of one Ramchandra Shesho to recover possession of the family property from the first defendant, Bhimacharya, who claimed to have been adopted by Ramchandra two days before his death, and to be entitled, under his will, to share equally with the minor plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge has found the adoption proved, and that its validity is unimpeachable.2. The factum of the adoption has not been disputed before us; but it is contended that it was invalid, owing to the undisputed circumstance of Ramchandra's wife being pregnant at the time it took place. The question raised by this contention was considered by the Madras High Court in Nagabhushanam v. Seshammagaru I.L.R., 3 Mad., 180and decided in favour of the validity of an adoption during the pregnancy of the wife. It is pointed out in that case that there is no authority in the Hindu law books for holding that an adoption is only permissible when the adopting...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Karachi Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom103
1. We think the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The receipt sent up with the reference is one for the payment of money 'the amount of which exceeds twenty rupees.' It is, therefore, an instrument requiring a stamp under Act I, 1879, Schedule I, Article 52, unless it comes under Schedule II, Article 15(5). That article exempts from stamp duty a receipt for payment of money 'without consideration.' The exemption was intended apparently to apply to receipts for 'voluntary' payments, which in the ordinary legal acceptation of the term are payments without consideration, such as payments made merely in consideration of natural love OK affection or mere gifts. The receipt in question is one for payment of house rate due to the municipality under the Act constituting the municipality. The payment is not gratuitous, but one in satisfaction or discharge of a legal obligation imposed by the Act, and in order to relieve the payer from the consequence which would ensue...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »