Mumbai Court October 1904 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.
Waman Bapuji Vs. Changu Has Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1904
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR87
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. In our opinion the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge A. P. was not entitled on the materials before him to vary the decree of the first Court in the manner he did; because it is impossible for a Judge without proper materials to form any opinion as to what will be the effect of a diversion in the natural flow of a stream. No doubt the riparian owner may put water that flows through his land tocertain uses connected with his land and for that purpose he may be entitled to divert its course. But it must be done in such, a manner as not to inflict any material injury on the lower riparian owners.2. We think therefore that the appellant is entitled to have determined an issue in these terms:-Whether after the removal of the sluice and the permanent closing of the opening in which it stood, there will he material injury to the plaintiff by reason of the diversion of the stream.3. Parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence on this point.4. Return will ...
Bhasker Waman Ranade Vs. Shridhar Krishna Kothavle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1904
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR898
Tyabji, J.1. This is an application under Section 245B of the Civil Procedure Code for execution of the decree by the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant. The defendant is an adjudicated Insolvent and he has admitted the full amount of the claim in his schedule. He applied to the Insolvent Court for protection against execution creditors. Such protection was however refused on the ground that the defendant had incurred the liability in question by fraud and misconduct. It is clear, therefore, that the Court especially established for protecting Insolvent Debtors has not thought it fit to grant to the defendant any protection against this creditor. It would, therefore, be an astonishing measare for the High Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction to grant a protection deliberately refused by the Insolvent Court. It was argued, however, on behalf of the defendant that Section 49 of the Insolvent Act is imperative and that although the expression in that section is that the Court 'm...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›