Mumbai Court July 1903 Judgments
Pandharinath Sakharam Vs. Shankar Narayan Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1903
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR488
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The only part of the decree with which we think it necessary to interfere is that which follows on the direction for payment by instalments. For, what succeeds that direction appears to us to be contrary to the provisions of Section 15 (b) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act XVII of 1879, and in place of that part of the decree which commences with the words ' and on failure to pay any two successive instalments &c.; ' the decree should contain the following direction :-If the sum payable under the direction aforesaid is not paid when due, then defendant No. 1 will be at liberty to apply to the Court for such order as he may be entitled to under Section 15 (b), sub-section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. We further direct that the first instalment be paid on the 1st January 1904 and the subsequent instalments on the 1st of January of each succeeding year.3. The appellant must pay two-thirds of respondent No. 1's costs of this appe...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Waman Shivram Damle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom408
Chandavarkar, J.1. The unanimous verdict of the jury, finding the accused guilty in this case, has been accepted by the Judge, and, in accordance with it, he has sentenced accused Nos. 1 to 12 to five years' rigorous imprisonment on the charge of forgery of a will under Section 467, Indian Penal Coda, and accused No. 1 to an additional term of two years' rigorous imprisonment on the charge of using as genuine a forged document under Section 471, Indian Penal Code. In this appeal against the convictions and sentences, the learned Counsel for the appellants, relying on Emperor v. Malgowda Basgowda (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 683; post p. 644 has contended that there was misdirection in the learned Judge's charge to the jury, because, it is urged, he omitted to call the attention of the jury to several matters of prime importance which favoured the accused. It is conceded that the Judge's charge was, upon the whole, favourable to the accused, and we think that he summed up the case most carefully ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Shaligram Vs. Sonji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom405
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. In our opinion actual service is not necessary. But where notice has issued, time runs from the date of the order directing the same under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882). This case must be determined by reference to that date....
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Sulemanji Ismalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom403
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. We affirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court on the ground that as this suit is brought by the Municipality for breach of an executory contract, it is open to the defendant to show that it is not binding on him inasmuch as it is not binding on the plaintiff. It is not binding on the plaintiff because the formalities prescribed by Section 30 of the Bombay District Municipal Act Amendment Act, 1884, have not been complied with. The appellant must pay the costs of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vinayak Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Narayan Balaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom400
Chandavarkar, J.1. The point of law which arises in this case is, whether this suit to set aside the adoption of defendant 1 is barred under article 118 of the Limitation Act, and fails within the principle of the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Shrinivas v. Hanmant (1899) 24 Bom. 260.2. The facts are shortly these. One Bajaji who was entitled to certain watan property adopted on the 17th March, 1891, defendant 1 who was his daughter's son. Bajaji died on the 30th March, 1897. The plaintiffs brought this suit in 1899 for a declaration that the adoption of defendant 1 by Bajaji was invalid. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it ought to have been brought within six years from the date when the plaintiffs came to know of the adoption.3. It is contended before us that the period of limitation of six years prescribed by article 118, Limitation Act, cannot apply to the facts of the present case, because the adoption having been made by Bajaji himself, defend...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Vaman Kulkarni Vs. Waghu Valad Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom397
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. The question arising on this appeal is, whether the appellant should be preferred to the respondent as hair to the property in suit? The relationship of the parties is shown in the tabular statement contained in the judgment of the first Court. On Tukaram's death, about thirty years ago, he was succeeded by his widow, but on her remarriage the property passed to Tukaram's mother who has now died.3. The present claimants are the appellant who derives title under Tai and Salau on the one hand, and Waghu who is the grandson of Mahadaji.4. In the first place it was contended that on Tukaram's mother's death succession ought to be traced to Kushaji, her husband.5. The purpose of this argument was to take advantage of the rule in Jahis Presidenoy which assigns a high place in the order of succession to the sister. We are, however, of opinion that the point is covered by authority and that the heir of Tukaram is the person to succeed. The Question therefore resol...
Tag this Judgment!Pestonji Jehangirji Vs. Jaisingdas Hansraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1903
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR420
Robertson, J.1. The appellants are the heirs and executors of Jehangirji Hormasji, a merchant in Bombay. Jehangirji had certain transactions with the respondents, who are a firm of merchants trading at Khamgaon ; and on 23rd March 1892 he sued the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge at Akola for Rs. 24600-1-6 as the balance due to him on those transactions. The respondents brought into Court Rs. 2571, which they admitted to be due, and they denied liability for the rest. The Civil Judge at Akola, on 30th April 1897, gave decree for Rs. 13,421. On appeal, the Judicial Commissioner of the Hyderabad Assigned Districts, on 29th November 1899, reversed this decree, holding that the respondents were liable for 110 more than the sum brought into Court. The question in the present appeal is which of those judgments is right.2. On the face of the documents the contracts now in dispute were sales of cotton by Jehangirji to the amount of 2800 Bojas; and, although in each case the sale pur...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Haribhai Vs. Dhondu Chudaman Rangri and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom395
Candy, J.1. We think that the decree of the Subordinate Judge allowing the claim in the present suit cannot be supported. Suit No. 96 of 1899 was brought on the 16th March, 1899, by the firm of Chhaganlal Haribhai against Dhondu Chudaman and Baba Chudaman to recover on a bond passed to the firm by the defendants. The defence pleaded that the bond was void, being passed for the balance due on wagering transactions. On the 13th Jane, 1899, Dhondu Chudaman, one of the defendants in (she prior suit, brought the present Suit No. 167 of 1899 to have the bond mentioned above cancelled and delivered up to him. He made his brother Baba a co-defendant in the second suit. The Subordinate Judge allowed the claim, but in so doing he failed to notice that the jurisdiction given to him under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act is dependent upon the exercise of his discretion. This form of specific relief is founded upon the administration of a protective justice for fear (quia timet to use the tech...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Fateh Mahomed Vs. the Municipal Officer, Aden
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1903
Reported in: (1907)ILR27Bom374
E.T. Condy, C.S.I., Acting C.J.1. The main question before us is whether the Civil Court of the Resident at Aden, as constituted by Act II of 1864, is subject to the superintendence of the High Court of Bombay within the meaning of Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, dated 28th December, 1865. If it is, then the High Court has power to remove the present suit from the Court of the Resident and to try and determine that suit, and it is dear on the admitted facts that for the purposes of justice it is proper that this should be done if the High Court has that power. In Pirbhai v. B.B. and C.I. Railway Co. (1871) 8 Bom. 4214, Mr. Justice Green held that the Bombay Court of Small Causes, as constituted under Act IX of 1850 (amended by Act XXVI of 1864, Section 7), must be considered to be subject to the superintendence of the High Court for the following reasons: Subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 54 of Act IX of 1850, the High Court had authority under that section to remove cau...
Tag this Judgment!Behram Kaikhushru Irani Vs. Ardeshir Kavasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom366
E.T. Candy, C.S.I., Acting C.J.1. This is an application under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code, by the defendant in a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay to set aside a decree passed against him by two learned Judges of that Court under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The suit was originally decided on 22nd December, 1902, by the Acting Fifth Judge, Mr. Dashmukh, who dismissed the claim.2. Plaintiff then made an application to the Chief Judge and Mr. Deshmukh under Section 38.3. Such applications in the Bombay Court of Small Causes are (it is said) made orally.4. On the first day the application was to obtain an extension of time, which was granted. On the next day when the application was renewed Mr. Deshmukh had ceased to be a Judge of the Small Cause Court, and the application was heard by the Chief and Second Judges. Notice was then ordered to issue to defendant.5. The case eventually was heared by the Acting Chief and Second Judges (Messrs. R. Patell a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »