Mumbai Court August 1906 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.
Martand Trimbak Vs. Vinayak Kashinath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR832
Aston, J.1. The only question in this case is, whether the decree was properly sent by the lower Court to the Collector for execution. The decree in question awards to the decree-holder a sum of money to be recovered from the defendant, and it is left to the judgment-creditor to apply for the sale of certain property secured by the decree. It is common ground that subsequent to the decree, an order for the sale of immoveable property was passed.2. Mr. P.P. Khare has contended that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to allow the defendant to plead in the execution-proceedings his status as an agriculturist or more accurately his status as a person earning his livelihood principally by agriculture. He has contended that the Court had no such jurisdiction, because in the suit, and in certain proceedings taken in Poona before the decree was transferred to Nasik for further execution, no question of the status of the defendant was raised. Mr. Khare has also contended that if such a questio...
Martand Trimbak Garde and anr. Vs. Vinayak Kashinath Khasgivale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom5
Aston, J.1. The only question in this case is, whether the decree was properly sent by the lower Court to the Collector for execution. The decree in question awards to the decree-holder a sum of money to be recovered, from the defendant, and it is left to the judgment-creditor to apply for the sale of certain property secured by the decree. It is common ground that subsequent to the decree, an order for the sale of immoveable property was passed.2. Mr. P. P. Khare has contended that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to allow the defendant to plead in the execution-proceedings his status as an agriculturist or more accurately his status as a person earning his livelihood principally by agriculture. He has contended that the Court had no such jurisdiction, because in the suit, and in certain proceedings' taken in Poona before the decree was transferred to Nasik for further execution, no question of the status of the defendant was raised. Mr. Khare has also contended that if such a ques...
Chandraprasad Hariprasad Vs. Varajlal Umedram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR644
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is an application to us under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. It is objected by the plaintiff that his suit was wrongly dismissed.3. The suit was based on a Khata, and it seems to have been contended before the Court that the Khata was a promissory note.4. We do not think that it is a promissory note within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but subject to the conditions that we will next mention, it does appear to us that it may be a promise within Section 25, Clause (iii) of the Contract Act.5. The conditions necessary to make it a promise within that section is that it should be made in writing; be signed by the persons to be charged therewith; and be a promise to pay wholly or in part a debt, of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law of the limitation of suits.6. It is said that the signatory of this Khata is not the original debtor, but is his son and heir.7. For the defendant it is...
Ashidbai Vs. Abdulla Haji Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR652
Chandavarkae, J.1. This is an action brought by Ashidbai, widow of Oosman Ahmed Bakhai, to set aside a document dated the 26th of February 1903 and for further reliefs, on the ground that it was obtained from her by means of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence by Abdulla Haji Mahomed, the first defendant.2. The property in dispute, which is situate at Soopari Bag, Parel, belonged to the plaintiffs husband. He died intestate in the year 1892, leaving him surviving as his next of kin and heirs, according to Mahomedan law, his widow (the present plaintiff), a daughter by name Zulekhabai (wife, since deceased, of the first defendant), and a sister by name Ashidbai, also since deceased. At the death of the plaintiff's husband the property was subject to several mortgages created by him on different occasions in favour of one Haji Ebrahim Tar Mahomed. A few years after his death the plaintiff and her daughter created further charges on the property. The daughter died intestate in 19...
Ravji Khandu Chambhar Vs. S.B. Fraser
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR638
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. So far as the applicant before us complains that the Mamlatdar has made no order for a prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that he has come to the wrong Court ; and so far as he complains that the Mamlatdar has not passed an order sentencing the defendant to prison for contempt of Court, we are of opinion, notwithstanding the very able argument of Mr. Ajinkya that the Mam-latdar is not shown to have power as a Court to commit to prison for contempt of Court for the failure to carry out an injunction.2. We are invited to say what remedy a party has under these circumstances. We think that it would be wrong for us to express any opinion except upon the facts before us.3. We must, therefore, discharge the rule with costs....
Shivlingrao Jagdeorao Vs. Rango Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR777
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is an application to us to set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bijapur whereby he purported to dismiss suit No. 149 of 1903.2. After that suit had been instituted, the parties to it are alleged by the plaintiff to have referred the differences between them to arbitration. It is said that an award was made and on the strength of that award, the plaintiff applied to the Court that it should be filed in Court.3. The defendant apparently denied the award with the result that the Subordinate Judge declined to file the award and dismissed the suit No. 149 of 1903.4. Chapter XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code governs references to arbitration. It contemplates two classes of references : One by the parties to a suit who obtain an order from the Court for a reference to arbitration : The other when persons agree in writing that the difference between them shall be referred to arbitration.5. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in Harivala...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Bhagirathibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR689
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. The question submitted to this Full Bench as amended runs as follows :-Whether, if a plaintiff withdraw from a suit without permission under Section 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the result of a compromise by which he obtained a substantial part of the relief claimed, he succeeds in the suit within the meaning of Section 411, or fails in the suit within the meaning of Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?2. The decisions of this Court in The Collector of Kanara v. Krishnappa Hedge ILR (l890) 15 Bom. 77 and in Bai Chandaba v. Kuver Saheb Bapu Saheb ILR (1893) 18 Bom. 464 necessitated this reference.3. Section 411 provides that 'If the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the Court shall calculate the amout of Court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper; and such amount shall be a first charge on the subject matter of the suit....'4. Section 412, on the other hand, provides that 'If t...
Bapuji Dorabji Vs. Dastur Kaikhushru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR678
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an application to us under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the complaint is that the Small Cause Court, acting under Section 38, has committed an error in jurisdiction.2. The facts of the case, as alleged by the plaintiff, are that he advanced a sum of money to the firm of Dastur and Davar, and as security for that advance took a promissory note. The promissory note is signed in the handwriting of one Dhanjisha Hormasji Davar, who at that time was undoubtedly a member of the firm of Dastur and Davar. The other member of the firm was the present defendant, Dastur Kaikhushru Dastur. Prior to the suit Dhanjisha died, and so proceedings were taken against the surviving partner alone.3. The record before us does not contain any summons, but a letter addressed to the defendant under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, in lieu of a summons.4. That letter is based upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff on the 4th September 1904, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›