Mumbai Court January 1908 Judgments
In Re: Sorabji Jamsetji Tata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR696
Macleod, J.1. All these references relate to land within the area notified for acquisition by Government on behalf of the Port Trust for the purposes of the Bulk Oil Installation and other trade purposes in or about the end of 1905.2. By consent the references have been consolidated on the same terms as the references in which Mr. Shroff was the claimant and all the evidence given in those references is to be taken as evidence in these. Some of the plots are intermingled with Mr. Shroff's, and Mr. Strangman, who appeared for the claimants, said he had nothing further to add regarding their valuation beyond what he said when appearing for Mr. Shroff. But Mr. Strangman pointed out that the land in Reference 20 of 1907 admeasuring 57,216 square yards (which I shall call hereafter Heeracoorlee) stood on quite a different footing. The Collector valued it all over at six annas. It is situated to the north of the land I have already valued at six annas and was purchased by the late Mr. J.N. T...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Framji Cawasji Marker : Costs of Crawford and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR76
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. We think the order under appeal is erroneous. Rule 544 of the Rules of the High Court of Bombay does not empower a Judge to make an order on an attorney's application for taxation of his bill of costs for business not transacted in Court, unless such-order be by consent, and the Court has not, in our opinion, any inherent power on which the jurisdiction can be rested: Sayers v. Walond (1822) 1 S 97.2. The order, moreover, cannot be supported by reference to Rule 149 of the Supreme Court Rules, for, even if it be applicable, it provides for a procedure which has not been followed. We must, therefore, reverse the order with costs throughout. Certify for counsel....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nashmirbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR92
ORDERChandavarkar, J. 1. The words 'or otherwise' must be construed as having a limited signification following as they do words of a limited description. They mean 'in a manner similar to that of words or gestures.' Therefore, merely sitting at the window without any act done of the nature indicated in Clause (a) of Section 120 of the Police Act IV of 1902 would not be an offence under that section....
Tag this Judgment!Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal Singh Vs. Debi Dayal Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR230
Arthur Wilson, J. 1. These consolidated appeal relate to three villages, Chiyanki, Ganka and Lalgara, and the substantial conflict is between the first appellant and the first respondent.2. The villages with others were formerly the property of Ram Saran Singh, who on his death was succeeded by his infant son Narayan. Narayan died, while still an infant and unmarried, on the 7th August 1879, and left surviving him his grandmother Jileb Koer, an aunt Aprup Koer, widow of Ram Saran's brother, and a stepmother Etraj Koer, widow of Ram Saran. Of these, the grandmother was heir to the boy's property, with the limited interest of a Hindu female inheriting from a male. The three ladies appear to have lived together down to the death of the grandmother, which took place on the 22nd November 1894.3. On the death of the grandmother, the inheritance again opened, and the second and third appellants. Bhan Pertap Singh and Kirpa Narayan Singh were then the nearest male heirs of the deceased boy. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›