Mumbai Court August 1907 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.
Gulabchand Gopaldas Vs. Chunilal Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1134
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. It appears that the learned Judge, in the Court below, in confirming the decree, felt himself, upon the evidence which had been given in the first Court, unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion, the case for the plaintiff, in the present case, being that on the occasion that he was alleged to have committed this criminal trespass in the house in question at Yeola, he was not present there at all.2. The case for the defendant, the alleged malicious prosecutor, is that the plaintiff was there; but as I said above, on the evidence in the Civil proceedings neither the lower appellate nor the first Court could come to any satisfactory conclusion as to the presence or absence of the present plaintiff, the accused.3. That being so, the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court went very carefully indeed into the question as to whether or not he was entitled to treat the judgment of the Magistrate and the evidence given before the Magistrate, as evidence ...
Bai Vijli Vs. Bai Prabhalakshmi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1129
Louis P. Russell, Atg. C.J.1. I append a pedigree which sets out the relationship of the parties herein.2. The question in this case is whether the plaintiffs have preference over the grandson of the maternal aunt of the propositus. Both the lower Courts have held that Girjashankar is one of the atma bandhus of the propositus, thereby following the decision of the present Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Batty in Sha Chamanlal v. Dhosi Ganesh ILR (1904) 28 Bom. 453. In spite of the brave endeavour on the part of Mr. Setlur to argue that that case differs from the present one, we are unable to find that it does so. We are of opinion that the principle applied in that case must govern the present one.3. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decree of the lower appellate Court, which upheld the decree of the lower Court, must be confirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs....
Chunilal Jethabhai Vs. Dahyabhai Amulakh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1138
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this case it appears that the petitioners have filed a Second Appeal against the order dated the 20th December 1906, in Appeal No. 399 of 1905 on the file of the District Court of Ahmedabad on the 6th of April 1907 with all the necessary copies except the certified copies of the order of the first Court and of the decree of the appellate Court and of the decree of the High Court in the original suit. The said certified copies of the order of the first Court and of the appellate decrees in the original suit were filed on the 10th June 1907.2. The Registrar, however, directed the appeal to be returned as being beyond time.3. The appeal as presented on the 6th of April 1907 was in time, but the Registrar treated it as having been presented on the day on which the remaining copies were filed and has treated it as time-barred.4. The question referred to us is whether he was right in so doing.5. By Rule 17, Chapter V, Part V, of this High Court, Appellate S...
Ranchhod Bhawan Vs. Manmohandas Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1087
Macleod, J.1. One Ichalal Pranjivandas died on the 1st April 1869 having executed a will dated the 20th January 1869 (Ex.C) by which he appointed Vasudeo Krishnaji and Purbhudas Pranjivandas executors. Vasudeo renounced and Purbhudas died in 1890. In 1897, Suit No. 652 of 1897was filed by Bai Jadav, the widow and Bai Devkore, the daughter, of the testator for inter alia the construction of the will. Under a decree of the Appeal Court in that suit, dated the 13th day of October 1899 (Ex. V), the Court declared that two trustees should be appointed to carry out the trust, under the will of the testator and it was referred to the Commissioner to enquire as to who were fit and proper persons to be appointed such trustees, By an order of the 17th April 1901 (Ex. V) made in the said suit, Manmohandas Ramji and Kalliandas Keshavdas, the 1st and 2nd defendants in the present suit, were appointed trustees under the said will with power to sell in one or more lots the properties of the testator ...
Emperor Vs. Haji Shaik Mahomad Shustari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1059
Chandavarkar, J.1. Following the judgment of this Court in Emperor v. A.M. Jeevanji : (1907)9BOMLR967 our answers to the first question and the second question are in the affirmative. We should add with reference to the second question that if a servant, having been appointed as an agent for a particular business by his master, enters into an agreement in connection with that business, every thing which he does within the scope of his employment 'for that purpose will be binding upon the master and the master will be criminally liable for such, acts of the servant under the Indian Emigration Act. Insuch a case the master's express knowledge of, or consent to, the act is not necessary, because from the very fact of the appointment of the servant as an agent in such a business, the master's knowledge of, or consent to, every act done by the servant or agent within the scope of his employment is implied by law.2. The third question referred by the Chief Presidency Magistrate is:-'Is a per...
In Re: Ganeshdas Panalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1093
Beaman, J.1. The point to be decided on this Rule is, I believe, as yet uncovered by authority. The Court is asked to order a Receiver in Amritsar to hand over the assets of the insolvents to the Official Assignee. It is objected on behalf of the Receiver, that this Court has no jurisdiction to make any such order. For the Official Assignee, it is contended, to put it shortly, that the Indian Insolvency Act extends to the whole of India, that any High Court Judge empowered to preside as Commissioner of insolvency, has therefore, provided the insolvency occurred within the territorial jurisdiction, power to make an order under Section 26 going to any part of India. It is sufficient for the present to limit the contention to India. As I understand the argument upon which this contention rests, it is that the insolvency jurisdiction is quite distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court; that it is larger; that notwithstanding anything in the Letters Patent, it cannot be less than was ...
R.D. Sethna Vs. Mirza Mahomed Shirazi (No. 4)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1047
Beaman, J.1. The question being whether a will was made in or about (say) 1880, or whether it was forged for the first time in (say) 1900, a letter which is formally proved to have been written by a person who died in (say) 1885 containing a mention of the will is tendered. It is objected to as being the statement of a person who is dead or cannot be found etc. and not fulfilling the conditions of Section 32. It is supported on the ground that it is itself a relevant fact under Section 11. While I adhere to the correctness of the opinion I expressed when the point was first argued, that as a general rule Section 11 is controlled by Section 32 where the evidence consists of statements of persons who are dead or who cannot be found, further consideration suggests exceptions. The case law on the subject is so confused that it is difficult to extract from it any consistent principle much less any simple test for ascertaining what are and what are not exceptions. There is a test, a simple a...
Khetsidas Vs. Narotum Gordhundas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1084
Davar, J.1. This is a judge's summons taken by the defendants calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why they should not ' give inspection of the original contracts referred to in para 3 of the plaint.' The defendants have not filed their written statement and they contend that they are entitled to inspection before filing their written statement. The plaintiffs on the other hand object to give inspection before the written statement is filed. Our Rule 162, which corresponds with Order xxxi, r. 15, entitles a party to call upon the other side to produce for his inspection any document of documents referred to in the pleadings.2. The question is :-Are the documents of which inspection is sought referred to in the plaint. Reference is no doubt made in para 3 of the plaint to ' several contracts ' but this particular paragraph of the plaint is very inartistically worded. The argument before me by counsel has made things much clearer. It seems that the defendants' father gave certain or...
Naranji Vasanji Vs. Moti Govanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1126
L.P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. This suit was filed by the two plaintiffs who are bankers against the original defendant who had done business as a pleader for the ancestral firm which originally comprised the plaintiff's father and the two plaintiffs themselves.2. Subsequently, however, a minor son was born to one of the plaintiffs.3. The suit was filed by the two plaintiffs, their father being dead, to recover a sum including principal and interest of over Rs. 2.000 from the defendant, a pleader and paragraph 16 of the plaint puts forth their case. There they say ' all of us were members of a joint Hindu family living in union in every respect. And while living in union Govan Nathaji and Laloo Govanji died. The deceased Laloo has no issue; therefore his right, title and interest in the debt in suit have come to an end and according to the rule of survivorship we plaintiffs alone have become owners of the debt in suit; therefore we have brought the suit in our names. '4. Now one of the de...
Pandharinath Vishwanath Vs. Govind Shivram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1305
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. The question in this case is whether a deceased Hindu widow, governed by theMitakshara, is competent to make a gift of moveables inherited by her from her husband, who died childless andintestate.2. The appeal comes up from Sholapur.3. The facts are simple. There were three brothers, the plaintiff GovindShivram, defendant 1 Manohar and one Gopal, husband of Gitabai. On the 25th September 1897 a decree for partition between them was passed on an award (Ex. 70); Gopal being of unsound mind was represented by the plaintiff in the arbitration proceedings. Under that decree Gopal was given a specific share in the family property consisting of a house, some ornaments for his wife and about Rs. 4,000 in cash; and on the 1st of December 1898 his share was handed over to his wifeGitabai- see Ex. 71. Gopal died in September 1902 and on the 22nd of December 1902Gitabai, his widow, executed a document, Ex. 65, in favour of the defendant 4, a nephew ofGopal's. That d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »