Mumbai Court December 1908 Judgments
Sherbanoo Vs. Ajbai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.309
Davar, J.1. On the 5th instant, the petitioner, Sherbanoo, through her counsel, obtained a rule nisi in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, calling upon Ajbai and Ludhabhai Hussam to appear and show cause why they should not deliver up the minor Ebrahim, alleged to be improperly detained by them, to the petitioner. This rule was argued before me on the 12th instant, when the respondents who appeared by counsel submitted certain considerations to the Court.2. Mahomedbhai Hassam, a Shiah Mahomedan, died on the 27th of November 1908, leaving, him surviving, the petitioner, his widow, and a minor son named Ebrahim. This minor was born on the 12th of July 1903, and is now about five years and four months old. The respondent Ajbai is the grand-mother of the deceased Mahomedbhai and the respondent Ludhabhai is his brother. The deceased, at the time of his death, was living with his minor son, with the respondents. The petitioner was not living with her husband for about two years previous ...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Kalyandas Vs. Bai Ochha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.338
1. In this case one Motilal Kaliandas has applied to this Court under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, on the ground that an order has been made against him by the District Judge of Ahmedabad for the payment of Rs. 2,748. without jurisdiction.2. Motilal Kaliandas was appointed guardian of the property of one Fulchand in November 1904, and early in 1905, owing to the death of the sole surviving partner of a firm in which the minor was interested, he applied to the Court for sanction to appoint a gumasta to manage the firm's business; that application was sanctioned, and a man named Narmadashankar was accordingly appointed gumasta on the 13th of February in that year.3. In August 1906, the minor Fulchand died and on his death the guardianship of Motilal terminated, but there was no adult legal representative to recover the estate in the hands of Motilal.4. Accordingly a fresh guardian had to be appointed of the minor widow Lalita who had survived Fulchand, and the choice of...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavji Kamdar and Chhotubhai Vs. Dada Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.201
Russell, J.1. This was a petition in re certain costs of Madhavji and Co.2. Messrs Madhavji Kamadar and Chhotubhai presented a petition for an order that the Taxing Master do tax bills of costs of petitioners with reference to the matters referred to in the petition.3. The opponents, inter alia, deny their retainer of the petitioners.4. The petition is presented under the new Rule 544, which was passed to give effect to the decision of Davar, J. In re Framji G. Markar 9 Bom. L.R. 1014. The rule runs as follows:544. The Taxing Officer shall tax the bills of costs on every side of the Court (except the appellate side) and in the Insolvent Court. All other bills of costs of attorney shall also be taxed by him when he is directed to do so by a Judge's order.5. It will be observed that this rule is imperative, and it has been held that an attorney can obtain an order in taxation of his costs, although he knows that his client disputes the retainer as to the whole bill: In re Jones (1887) 36...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bahadur Shiv Lal Moti Lal Vs. Rajee Vappa Pampanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.319
Chandavarkar, J.1. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General to the maintenance of this suit must be allowed. The learned Subordinate Judge does not appear to have borne in mind the legal consequence of the previous litigation. That was a suit brought by the present plaintiff on the agreement which forms the basis of the present suit also. It has been urged before us by Mr. Branson that it is not so. But a perusal of the present plaint will show that the plaintiff in paragraph 4 distinctly refers to the previous suit, to the agreement which formed the basis of it and to the leave which was given by the judgment in that suit to bring the present suit. It is also clear from the said plaint that this suit is brought as a result of that leave.2. Now, the cause of action in the previous suit was a breach of the very contract which is now in dispute. The plaintiff chose, one of the stipulations in that agreement and claimed relief in respect of it. And with reference t...
Tag this Judgment!Amrita Ravji Rao Vs. Shridhar Narayan Oke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.322
Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts upon which the question of adverse possession, arising on the second appeal, turns, are found and stated as follows in the judgment of the lower appellate Court:The plaint-land (S. No. 17, Pot No. 1) along with other lands was originally the joint property of two brothers, Gangadhar and Damodar.One Narayan, the father of the plaintiffs, obtained a decree in Regular Suit No. 735 of 1873 against Damodar on a mortgage-bond; and in execution of that decree, in Darkhast No. 699 of 1875, ho brought the property to sale. The property was purchased by Vishnu Ganesh. The suit had been instituted by Narayan against Damodar as Manager of the joint Hindu family. Gangadhar, however, obstructed the purchaser, Vishnu Ganesh, in taking possession, whereupon the latter instituted Regular Suit No. 178 of 1877 against Gangadhar to remove the obstruction. The District Court decided in appeal in that suit that Vishnu Ganesh was entitled to recover possession by partition of a m...
Tag this Judgment!Manchershaw S. Narielwalla Vs. Ardeshir S. Narielwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1209
Beaman, J.1. At the close of Mr. Raikes' opening argument it appeared to me pretty plain that he would fail unless he could make out a valid gift. 1 therefore suggested one or two extreme hypothetical cases which might warrant some enlargement of the principle on which the English rule is founded. But Mr. Raikes candidly said that he doubted whether he could press that side of the case, and a cursory study of the authorities showed that he was right. The question thereiore which I am now to decide is in its final form a narrow question, but it presents more than one difficulty. To make it perfectly clear and intelligible, let me state the facts, out of which it arises.2. On the 7th September 1892 one shapurji Sorabji Narielwalla purported to make a gift of Rs. 75,000 to his wile Virbaiji on her recovery from a dangerous illness. This gift, or intended gift, is manifested by two book entries of that date, a debit and a credit entry in the cash book. The material words of the debit entry...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Manilal Bhogilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.102
Chandavarkar, J.1. The accused, who is the agent and an occupier of the Silk and Cotton Manufacturing Company, Limited, Ahmedabad, was charged with and tried for an offence under Section 15(1)(c) of the Indian Factories Act, in that he allowed two boys both aged under fourteen to work in the mill unregistered.2. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused principally on the ground that the work which the boys were employed to do was not an integral part of the ordinary mill operations, and that the boys had been employed not by the accused but by an independent contractor, and that therefore the accused was not responsible for their employment.3. Upon a careful consideration of the provisions of the Indian Factories Act, XV of 1881, I think that the grounds upon which the Magistrate has proceeded cannot be supported. It appears to me that the provisions in question throw upon the occupier the responsibility as regards the employment of boys under fourteen unregistered, and that pr...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahamad Khan Rajakhan Pathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.104
Chandavarkar, J.1. It is very much to be regretted that this case, which could have been dealt with by the First Class Magistrate, who tried it in the first instance, was committed by him to the Sessions Court. The charge originally had been of an offence tinder Section 409, Indian Penal Code, but the Magistrate added one under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code without any solid ground for the addition and any reasonable support for it in the evidence. It appears as if the addition was made to enable the Magistrate to commit the case to the Sessions. At any rate that is the conclusion forced on the mind of this Court by the circumstances of the case. A practice of this kind must be deprecated, because it throws on Sessions Courts the burden of trying cases which can well be tried and disposed of by Magistrates of the First Class. This Court has noticed of late several cases in which Magistrates have added charges apparently for the purpose of enabling them to commit those cases to ...
Tag this Judgment!Laldas Jibhai Vs. Bai Lala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.105
Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned District Judge has held the award to be no bar to the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, because, in his opinion, the award does not confer any title by itself but 'at the most amounts to an agreement to convey' it. The terms of the award do not, in my opinion, warrant that view.2. The circumstances under which the award was passed are shortly these. Bai Lala (the first respondent) having mortgaged the property in dispute inherited by her as a Hindu widow from her husband, to Bechar Bhagwan (the second respondent), the appellants claiming as the reversionary heirs of the husband, filed Suit No. 582 of 1893 for a declaration that the mortgage was of a fraudulent and colourable character. Both the mortgagor (Bai Lala) and the mortgagee (Bechar Bhagwan) were parties to the suit. During its pendency, the parties referred the dispute to arbitration, which ended in the award. According to its terms, the mortgage in dispute was upheld but the present app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›