Mumbai Court March 1889 Judgments
Kessowji Damodar Jairam Vs. Luckmidas Ladha and Khimji Jairam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom404
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think this Court has no jurisdiction, and the order appealed from must be confirmed. The object of this suit, as set forth in the plaint, is to have the accounts taken of the Zanzibar business. The defendant, who was manager there, is charged with misappropriating money. Reliance is placed upon the fact that certain sums of money, which form part of the total amount with which he is charged, were misappropriated by him by means of certain misrepresentations made or directions given in Bombay. We do not think that that is sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction. The mere fact that the fraud in connection with certain items in the account was effected in Bombay would not justify a change of venue. It is possible that the case would be tried here in a manner more satisfactory to the plaintiff than it can be elsewhere: but that is not a matter for our consideration. The simple question is, whether such a material part of the cause of action has arisen in Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Ambaidas Vs. Tekchand Ambaidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom670
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. As Section 316, Civil Procedure Code, does not require any formal application to be made for a certificate of sale no written application is compulsory. In case any person chooses to apply in writing, the paper, as this is optional, need bear no stamp....
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Pandu Vs. Mahomed Walli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom671
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think with the Madras High Court - Yella Chetti v. Munisami Reddi I.L.R. 6 Mad. 101that Section 257A applies only as between the parties to the suit and decree. Whether on other grounds there was no good consideration for the bond is another question....
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shri Majirajbai Vs. Narotam Hargovan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom672
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We agree with the opinion of the Allahabad High Court in Amir Zama v. Nathumal I.L.R. 8 All. 96 having regard to the language of the concluding paragraph of Section 11 and of Section 216, that a written statement containing a claim of set-off must be regarded as a plaint in regard to such set-off, and is, therefore, chargeable with the Court-fee which would be payable on a plaint of that nature....
Tag this Judgment!Ravji Moreshvar Vs. Sayajirao Ganpatrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom673
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We are of opinion that the Collector cannot take such an objection relying on Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code, as a khot is not a 'public officer,' and the percentage received by him for collecting the assessment on dhara land is not 'salary' within the contemplation of Section 266, Clause (h), of the Civil Procedure Code....
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Ramdas Vs. Ramdas Mathuradas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom677
Parsons, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued Ramdas to recover damages for wrongful arrest and malicious proseeution. He, alleged that Ramdas on the 10th November, 1883, obtained warrant for his arrest on a charge of criminal breach of trust; that he was arrested on it on the 16th November, kept in jail until the 20th November, when he was released fin bail, and that he was only discharged by the Magistrate on the 23rd November, 1883. The plaint was filed on the 23rd November, 1883, and Ramdas died on the 10th May, 1885. The question before us is whether on his death the right to sue survived, or whether the suit abated under Section 861 of the Civil Procedure Cede. Act XII of 1855 has been cited to us as a special statute which gives the plaintiff the right to continue the suit against the heir of Ramdas. That Act, however, relates only to suits brought against the heirs of a deceased person for a wrong committed by the latter in his lifetime. Such is not the present suit. As therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Gangavishnu Shrikisondas Vs. Moreshvar Bapuji Hegishte and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom358
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit prays for an injunction restraining the defendants from printing and selling copies of a certain religious Sanskrit work on religious observances entitled 'Vrtraj'. He alleges that some years ago he resolved to prepare and publish a new and annotated edition of this book, which is said to be an old book of high authority, and for that purpose obtained the assistance of Pandits, who recast and rearranged the work, introduced various passages from other old Sanskrit books on the same subject, and added foot-notes. The plaint states that the Pandits were for two years engaged in the preparation of this new edition, which was published in December, 1884. The copyright was registered, under Act XXV of 1867, in May 1885.2. In 1886 the defendants printed and published an edition of the same work, and the plaintiff says that the defendants' edition is substantially a copy of his book; that the defendants have sold it at a reduced price, and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kadarbhai Vs. Rahimbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom674
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. It is not in dispute that the window in the south wall of the plaintiff's house is an ancient window into which the light passed without any obstruction before the defendants built their present wall. It is found by the Subordinate Judge, who visited the plaintiff's house, that the effect of the new wall will be to render the back room so dark as to render it 'impossible to walk about or do anything in it.' The only question is, therefore, as to the form of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. The Joint Judge considers that the plaintiff will be adequately indemnified by the defendants opening another window for him to the east of the window in question, the light into which will not be interfered with by the defendants' house. This, however is a form of relief which the plaintiff cannot be compelled to accept. He has an absolute and indefeasible right under Section 26 of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, to have substantially the same amount of light enter ...
Tag this Judgment!Balvantrao and ors. Vs. Bhimashankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom517
Parsons, J.1. The Subordinate Judge says: 'The plaintiffs bring this suit as one for accounts, while the suit is really of the nature described by the appeal Court in Appeal 199 of 1885 (that is, a suit for money had and received), and the stamp ought to be made good as if the claim were for Rs. 1,000. The plaintiffs were allowed time till to-day to make good the stamp accordingly, but their pleader refuses to-day to make it good,' and the Subordinate Judge, for that reason, dismissed the suit. We are of opinion that he has thus committed a double error,--first in applying Section 54(b) of the Civil Procedure Code to this case, and secondly, in himself valuing the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The suit as brought was one for an account, and the plaintiffs in their plaint valued the relief they sought approximately, as they were entitled to do, both under Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Section 7, Clause iv(f), of the Court Fees Act: see Govindas Kasandas v. Dayabhai Sava...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›