Mumbai Court September 1889 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.
Goculdas Madhavji Vs. Narsu Yenkuji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom630
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This reference from the Small Cause Court arises out of a claim for Rs. 981 alleged to be due to plaintiff upon an agreement entered into with him by the defendant on the 3rd September, 1888. By this agreement the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff rent for a piece of hilly ground at the rate of Rs. 529 per month for one year, during which time the defendant was to be allowed to blast stones and carry on the work to the extent of seven crow-bars. At the time of the agreement the defendant had a license from the Commissioner of Police, which expired on the 31st December, 1888. On his applying for a fresh license he was informed that the Municipal Commissioner objected to the license being granted, as the quarry, operations were being carried on, was surrounded rouses on all sides. By the agreement the plaintiff had the houses on defendant was to quarry; but it is admitted that there is no other part of the hill which could be used by the defendant for the purp...
S.A. Ralli and ors. Vs. Parmanand Jewraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom642
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. I think this is a case which properly falls under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code; for, I think, it has been shown that a material irregularity was committed by the Full Court on the hearing of the rule taken out in this case.2. It is plain that the ground the Full Court went on in disposing of the rule was that the equitable plea raised by the defendant, as to want of notice of the refusal to deliver on the part of Messrs. Lang. Moir & Co. was a good one. The only question, therefore, before us is, in so dealing with the matter, under the circumstances of the case, did the Court, or did it not, commit a material irregularity3. Now the circumstances of the case were shortly these. It is clear that, at the trial, Mr. Hart was of opinion that the defendant had committed a breach of his contract on the 185th April, and that that was the date which must be looked to settle the question of damages. That being that learned Judge's view, Mr. Craigle for the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›