Mumbai Court March 1907 Judgments
Badeshah Mahamadshah Vs. Narayan Anant Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR829
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The occasion of this suit is the execution of a document described as an Opan?Patra, as a result of which the defendants claim that there was a resignation of the land in auit by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 within the meaning of Section 10 of the Khoti Act.2. The lower appellate Court has decided in the plaintiff's favour and in accordance with the prayer in the plaint, has declared that the document is invalid as against the plaintiff.3. The Advocate-General contends that the suit was based upon the allegation that there was an agreement to mortgage and he asks us to dismiss the suit on the ground that this agreement to mortgage has not been established, the lower appellate Court having held as a fact that it was not proved.4. The relative positions of the parties do not geem to have been very clearly defined at the outset and this probably accounts for the somewhat uncertain course taken by this suit. But the result of the decision by the lower appella...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Chanchal Vs. Laxmi Dying and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR825
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the Lakshmi Dying, Printing, Bleaching and Manufacturing Company Limited and it is expressed to be so brought by its liquidator Hiralal Chhotalal.2. Apparently there is no defence to the suit on its merits. But it is said that as the suit is for the recovery of calls in a liquidation, it has been instituted in a wrong Court and that it is also defective in that only one liquidator has taken part in the suit.3. We will deal first with this last point. There is nothing on the record to show that at the institution of the suit there was any liquidator beyond the one named and we clearly cannot at this stage allow an affidavit to be read for the purpose of showing that there were two liquidators at that time. Therefore we need not express any opinion as to what would have been the result, had it been shown that there were two liquidators.4. Then it is said that the suit should have been brought in the District Court. This is based upon Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Mavji Manji Vs. Kuverji Narronji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR482
Davar, J.1. The plaintiff who is the owner of a godown consisting of three compartments situated in Kalyan street on one of the Port Trust estates sues two sets of defendants to recover from either the one or the other set a sum of money for rent of his godown. The first six defendants are members of a firm of merchants and muccadams who carry on business as Messrs. Khimji Vishram. Defendants 7 and 8 are members of the firm of Nensy Khairaj & Co. who are also merchants who carry on business in Bombay.2. The plaintiffs godown was agreed to be let to Messrs. Khimji Vishram from the 1st of May 1996 for a fixed term of twelve months. At the date of the agreement the godown was in the occupation of Messrs. Nensy Khairaj & Co. It is allegea by Messrs. Khimji Visram that they did not get possession of the premises in terms of this agreement-that only one compartment out of three was given possession of to them on the 22nd of May 1906-that they did not get possession of the two other compartme...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lakshman Vs. Vazir Bhau
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR550
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in relation to the payment of interest are certainly not clear. Mr. Shingne's argument has been that it is compulsory on the Court to award interest by reason of the expression contained in that sub-section, but we think that the words used do not require that view. We think that there is a discretion in the Court as to whether or not interest should be allowed and coming to that conclusion we certainly do not in the circumstances of this case consider that there is any reason to interfere.2. We must therefore confirm the decree with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shri Vaktuba Vs. Agarsangji Raisungji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR547
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. It is clear that in this case the Court acted under Section 206 of the Civil Procedure Code and only under that section.2. The decisions in Calcutta and Allahabad establish that the proceedings under Section 206 terminate in an order.3. We are, therefore, able to deal with the matter and we have no doubt that the learned Judges who granted the rule were right in their view that this order was beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Section 206.4. We therefore make the rule absolute with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Sadagopa Chariar Vs. A. Rama Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR663
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment and decree of the High Court at Madras affirming the decision of the District Judge of South Arcot which dismissed the appellants' suit with costs.2. The High Court refused leave to appeal on the ground that the matter in dispute was below the appealable value. Special leave, however, was granted on. the representation that the appeal raised questions of law of general importance touching the rights of religious bodies in India in regard to public processions and the right of one religious body to prevent a rival sect and an alien deity from invading precincts apparently public, but devoted or appropriated from time immemorial to the observance of its own peculiar ritual and worship; and at the same time involved the consideration of the effect of previous decisions on similar questions between members of different sects of one and the same community.3. The suit was the outsome of a long-standing feud between Vadagalais and Tengalais-t...
Tag this Judgment!Faiyaz HusaIn Khan Vs. Munshi Prag Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR656
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh which affirmed a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur.2. Leave to appeal was granted on the ground that the appeal involved a substantial question of law. What the question was that was supposed to be involved is, however, left somewhat in obscurity.3.The facts are not in dispute.4. On the 14th of June 1889, Hamid Husain, the owner of Mauza Bangawan, mortgaged it to Newal Kishore.5. On the 13th of July 1891, Newal Kishore brought a suit on. his mortgage.6. On the 23rd of August 1892, he obtained a decree for sale which was made absolute on the 29th of November 1895.7. On the 21st of February 1901, the property was sold in execution of Newal Kishore's decree and purchased by the respondent Prag Narain, who was the son and the representative of the decree holder.8. On the 2nd of the July 1901 Prag Narain obtained a sale certificate and attempted to recover possession of the property. He was, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Mowji Monji Vs. Kuverji Nanaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom516
1. The plaintiff who is the owner of a godown consisting of throe compartments situated in Kalyan street on one of the Port Trust estates sues two sets of defendants to recover from either the one or the other set a sum of money for rent' of his godown. The first six defendants are members of a firm of merchants and muccadams who carry on business as Messrs. Khimji Vishram. Defendants 7 and 8 are members of the firm of Nensy Khairaj and Company who are also merchants who carry on business in Bombay.2. The plaintiff's godown was agreed to be let to Messrs. Khimji Vishram from the 1st of May 1906 for a fixed term of twelve months, At the date of the agreement the godown was in the occupation of Messrs. Nensy Khairaj and Company. It is alleged by Messrs. Khimji Vishram that they did not get possession of the premises in terms of this agreement; that only one compartment out of three was given possession of to them on the 22nd of May 1906 that they did not get possession of the two other c...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kaitan Duming Fernad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR695
Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioners, seven in number, have been convicted by the First Class Magistrate at Karwar, of the offence of gaming in a common gaming house under Section 5 of Bombay Act IV of 1887. The first petitioner has also been convicted of the offence of keeping a common gaming house under Section 4 of the Act. The legality of the conviction is questioned before us on the ground that the Magistrate has erred in applying the provisions of Section 7 of the Act by presuming at the outset the guilt of the petitioner and throwing on them the onus of proving their innocence.2. The facts which have been found by the Magistrate and which are material for the purposes of the ground on which we are asked to quash the convictions, are briefly these:-One Kashinath Laxman, Abkari Sub-Inspector, Karwar, having met the District Magistrate of that place, driving in a dumny on the Kodibag road, informed the said Magistrate that gambling was then going on in the house of Kaitan D. Fernad, ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sitaram Vs. Bhaga Ganga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR327
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether a Court invested with Small Cause Court Powers is governed by paragraph I L R (1883) 8 Bom. 230 or paragraph (2) of Section 203 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. It has been argued before us by Mr. Shingne that it is paragraph (2) that governs and in support of his proposition he has cited to us Bhagvan Dayalji v. Balu I L R (1883) 8 Bom. 270, Malhari v. Narso I L R (1884) 9 Bom. 174, Bampartap v. Ganesh I L R (1887) 12 Bom. 31 and Ramchandra v. Ganesh I L R (1898) 23 Bom. 382 of these cases however only the last cited is under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887 ; but apart from this they cannot in our opinion affect the decision of this case. The question submitted must, we think, be governed by the sections to which reference was made in the Judgment granting the rule.3. Section 32 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act provides that So much of Chapters III and IV, as relates to the practice and pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »