Mumbai Court May 1888 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Tulsiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom168
Birdwood, J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted of voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. He obstructed a surveyor who was sent by the Collector to measure off rice land in the possession of the accused and to give possession of it to the decree-holder in a suit brought against the accused is the Mamlatdar's Court under Bombay Act III of 1876. The Mamlatdar had found some difficulty in executing the decree in the manner contemplated in the Act, as the village officers had reported that there was no land corresponding to the boundaries specified in the plaint, and that the parties were joint owners and in joint occupation of the land in a suit. The decree-holder had sued for a certain specific portion of land, not for partition. Indeed, he could not have brought a suit for partition in the Mamlatdar's Court nor could the Mamlatdar have decreed partition. In the difficulty in which the Mamlatdar found himself, he asked for advice and...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabbhai Gopalji and ors. Vs. Jinabhai Ratanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom213
Birdwood, J.1. The suit in the Mamlatdar's Court was one falling under Clause (c) of Section 15(1) of Bombay Act III of 1876; and the first issue in it was, whether the plaintiff was actually in possession of the property claimed. Unless he was in possession at the time of the suit, he could not obtain any relief under Clause (c). The Mamlatdar found that he had, as a matter of fact, been dispossessed before the filing of the suit by a bailiff of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree obtained by the defendants against a third person. He, however, granted the relief prayed for, as he was of opinion that the bailiff had improperly given possession to the defendants without making 'any inquiry of the village kamdar as to the true facts of the case.' But that was not a question with which the Mamlatdar was concerned. It is clear that, in the present case, the plaintiff should have proceeded for the alleged obstruction of his possession by the defendants, not by a suit under the Mamlat...
Tag this Judgment!Hathibhai Nahansa Vs. Patel Bechar Praghi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom371
1. The words 'a copy of any order for the execution of the decree' in Section 224, Clause (c), of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) mean a copy of any subsisting order....
Tag this Judgment!The Imperial Flour Mills Company Limited Vs. W.T. Lamb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom647
Scott, J.1. This case turns upon the construction of Section 45 of the Indian Companies Act VI of 1882. Mr. Lamb, on the 13th April, 1886, signed a printed copy of the proposed memorandum of association of a projected company, which on the 3rd August, 1886, was registered as the 'Imperial Flour Mills Company.' On the same date, viz. the 3rd August, Mr. Lamb received a notice from the secretary of the company notifying that the company had been duly registered, and requesting him to pay the sum of Rs. 100, 'being deposit of Rs. 10 per share on shares subscribed by yon.' On the 5th August Mr. Lamb replied to the secretary: 'Yours to hand this morning. As my terms of agreement expire in the coarse of a few months, and not knowing whether I shall stay in the country, I have decided not to take up the shares for the present.' To this the secretary rejoined next day-' You have legally become a shareholder of the company when you have signed the articles and memorandum of association, and sin...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hormasji Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom87
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The answer to be returned by us to the question referred, must depend upon the view we take of the nature of the agreement sent up by the Commissioner. If it be regarded as one 'not otherwise provided for by this Act' (i.e., Act I of 1879), then it is undoubtedly chargeable with a duty of eight annas under Schedule I, Article 5(c).2. We are thus led to consider two other provisions of the Act. Is it a lease within the meaning of it? If not, is it an agreement 'for or relating to the sale of goods' under Schedule II, Article v 2 (a)? It is an agreement for the consumption of 'grass' growing on a certain piece of land for a time and consideration stated therein. If such grass is 'immoveable property,' the agreement is a lease within the definition of that expression contained in Clause 12, Section 3 of the Act. The expression 'immoveable property' is nowhere defined in the Act itself. We must, therefore, take its definition from the General Clauses Act (I of 1868)....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›