Mumbai Court November 1908 Judgments
In Re: Sadashiv Narayan Valkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.103
1. Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code invests the Magistrate with a discretionary power and it is a rule of law that such power must be exercised judicially, i.e., according to sound principles of law and not in an arbitrary manner. But what that means is not that the order is in the opinion of the higher tribunal of revision an improper one which it would not have passed, but that having regard to the materials before the Court exercising the discretion that discretion was exercised in a legal manner. Now, if there were no materials whatever before him, the Magistrate ought to have returned the property to the person from whom it was produced. But if there were some materials then the Magistrate's discretion came into operation and it was for him to say what order ought to be passed having regard to all the facts in the case.2. Here there was a quarrel amongst the members of a joint Hindu family, and the Magistrate, although he held that no offence was committed, ordered that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Dinshaw Manockji Petit and ors. Vs. Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.701
Davar, J.1. The seven plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Parsi community of Bombay. They profess the Zoroastrian religion. The five defendants are also members of the same community and profess the same religion.2. The Parsis in India are descendants of a body of Persians who wore, about 1200 years ago, compelled to leave their Fatherland owing to religious persecution at the hands of the Mahomedans. This body of Persians, after taking refuge in Kohistan and afterwards in the Isle of Ormus, eventually made their home in India, and at the present time Bombay is their principal headquarters.3. Since their advent into India they have continued to follow the religion of their forefathers, and wherever they have settled in any appreciable numbers they have built for themselves Atash Behrams, Agiaries, and Dare Mehers for the performance of their religious worship and the observance of their religious rites and ceremonies and erected Dokhmas for the disposal of their dead according to...
Tag this Judgment!Vachhani Keshabhai Baliabhai Vs. Vachhani Nanbha Bawaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.108
1. The question that we have to decide is whether in a suit for a declaration and consequential relief the Court must accept the value of the relief stated in the plaint for the purpose both of the Court-fees and jurisdiction.2. We think that the words of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, VII of 1887, lead to that conclusion; and we find that this was the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Hari Sankar Dutt v. Kali Kumar Patra 32 C. 734.3. We have been pressed by a decision of the Court in Dayaram v. Gordhandas 8 Bom. L.R. 885 but that is a case which is clearly distinguishable, because the learned Judges there treated it as a suit in which there was a claim for possession.4. We, therefore, make the rule absolute and set aside the order of the lower Court with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Vithal Naik Vs. Nagapa Subaya Shanbhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1206
Chandavarkar, J.1. Under the Hindu Jaw a father has the right to sell or mortgage ancestral property, including the interests therein of his sons, in satisfaction of his antecedent debts, provided those debts were not contracted for immoral or illegal purposes. This right to dispose of the ancestral property so as to include and affect the shares of the sons arises, according to Hindu law, in virtue of the pious obligation of the sons to pay the debts of the father, which were not illegal or immoral. In other words, when the father alienates the property, he exercises the power of alienation which the sons would have exercised in discharge of their pious duty which they owed to him : he is virtually alienating the property for them and on their behalf in discharge of their duty in accordance with the power given to him by Hindu law. When once this principle of Hindu law is grasped, it follows that when the right, title and interest of a Hindu son in joint ancestral property has been at...
Tag this Judgment!Umabai Mangeshrao Vs. Vithal Vasudeo Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.120
1. The plaintiff alleges that one Mangba died without male issue leaving three daughters, namely, the plaintiff, the defendant No. 24 and Radhabai, deceased, and that after his death his widow Parvati being entitled to his property went on enjoying it and died on the 30th July 1900.2. These recitals are admittedly inaccurate, the fact being that Mangba left two sons, Subraya and Pundlik. Pundlik was adopted into another family and the estate of Mangba descended to Subraya. Subraya was succeeded by his widow Mathura and after her death by his mother Parvati, his reversionary heiresses being his sisters, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 24.3. The defendants Nos. 1--23 claim to be alienees by sale, mortgage or lease from Parvati. The plaintiff claims to recover the estate from the defendants Nos. 1--23 and to partition it between herself and, defendant No. 25 as assignee of the interest of her sister (defendant No. 24).4. In the first Court fifteen issues were raised and evidence was t...
Tag this Judgment!Sundrabai Saheb Vs. the Collector of Belgaum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1197
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question of law raised in this case by the learned Government Pleader relates to the valuation of Pleader's fees in proceedings for probate. The Collector of Belgaum, having applied to the District Judge for probate in respect of the will of Lingappa Jayappa Sir Desai of Navalgund, caveats were entered by or on behalf of several persons, one of whom was the deceased's widow. As she was a minor, the Collector applied to the District Judge for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The Judge having by an order appointed the Deputy Nazir of his Court, an appeal was filed in this Court against that order by Dayagowda Leegowda Patil, who described himself as guardian of the minor. The appeal was heard and the order was confirmed with costs, which were directed to be paid by the guardian. The Registrar's office having valued the Pleader's fees at Rs. 30 as part of the costs, according to a long-standing practice of this Court, the learned Government Pleader, who had a...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsang Mavsang Vs. Jethalal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1201
Chandavarkar, J.1. The respondents, having obtained a decree for money against the appellant, applied for its execution by sale of the toda giras allowance which the appellant was entitled to receive periodically from the Mamlatdar's Cutcherry at Mehmadabad. The specific prayer in the application was the attachment and sale of the allowance which was to become payable to the appellant during the twenty years following the application. The appellant resisted the prayer upon the ground that the allowance could nut be attached and sold, whether under Section 266 of the Code 0f Civil Procedure or under Section 5 of Bombay Act No. VII of 1887. This objection to the attachment and sale has been disallowed by both the Courts below.2. Section 5 of Bombay Act VII of 1887 enacts that ' no toda giras allowance shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of a decree, provided that any money due or likely to be come due to a judgment debtor on account of a toda giras allowance may be attache...
Tag this Judgment!Esmail Ebrahim Vs. Haji Jan Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1172
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant for eight thousand three hundred rupees. The defendant put in a written statement admitting the claim to the extent of Rs. 207 only which he brought into Court. The suit was called on on the 17th August and the plaintiff was present in Court with his attorneys' clerk and his witnesses ready to proceed with the hearing of the suit, but the two Counsel whom he had instructed were both absent. The defendant's Counsel appeared and raised issues and another Counsel was instructed by the plaintiff's attorneys' clerk to apply for an adjournment which, however, was not granted. The Court after waiting for some time for the plaintiff's regularly instructed Counsel to appear, on their non-appearence, dismissed the suit with costs.2. It is clear that the order of dismissal cannot stand because the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs. 207 brought into Court, and as it is necessary for us to pass a decree for that am...
Tag this Judgment!Government Pleader Vs. Jagannath M. Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1169
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This matter comes before us on the petition of the Government Pleader which states:-1. That Mr. Jagannath Moreshwar Samant, B.A., LL. B. is a District Court Pleader, and practises in the Courts of the District and Sessions Judge of Sholapur and Courts Subordinate thereto.2. That on the 30th July last a public meeting was held at Sholapur Before the Eon. Mr. Basil Scott, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Batchelor.Government PleaderV.Jagannath m. Samant.Nove. 16 1908Civil Applition No. 523 of 1908Regulation 11 of 1827, Section 56-Pleader-Misconduct-Disciplinary jurisdiction -Highhings spoke in favour of the fifth resolution passed on the occasion and was in the chair when the said resolution was put to the meeting. The resolution was in the Marathi language and was to the following effect:-That this meeting contemptuously denounces the Honourable Mr. Justice Davar of the Bombay High Court, who at the time of announcing sentence made unchecked and unconnected and unmeani...
Tag this Judgment!Rammul Dayalmul Vs. Megh Raj Gunga Bux
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.199
Russell, J.1. This is a Rule, taken out by the adjudicated insolvent, calling upon the opposing creditor to show cause why the adjudication order should not be set aside.2. Two questions have been raised in this matter. The first point is that the petition itself does not sufficiently follow the wording of Section 9 of the Act and is not in accordance with the authorities. Mr. Strangman relied upon the case of Abu Haji Suleman v. Haji Jan Mahomed 8 Bom. L.R. 648--the judgment of the Court of Appeal--which I followed in another Insolvency matter, No. 213 of 1906. The first point to notice is the wording of the present petition.3. Now, as observed in the Court of Appeal judgment in Ex parte Coates (1877) 5 Ch. D. 979, by James L.J., 'This is really not a mere matter of form. The Act says you must tell the debtor what the act of bankruptcy is which you allege against him, so that he may have an opportunity of contesting it in the first instance.' In that case, it is to be observed, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »