Mumbai Court June 1908 Judgments
Mulji Damodar Vs. Bomanji Mancherji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR772
Macleod, J.1. By an order of the 23rd September 1882 Mancherji Bomanji, a Translator in the High Court, was appointed Committee of the above lunatic and it was also ordered that the said Mancherji Bomanji should receive by way of remuneration a commission of five per cent, upon all moveable property goods chattels and moneys received and collected by him as such Committee belonging to the estate of the said lunatic. Thereafter the lunatic had two sons born to him, the eldest Mathuradas in 1884 and the younger Mulji the present petitioner in 1887. By an order dated the 19th April 1894 made on the ex parte application of the said Mancherji Bomanji it was ordered that in addition to the commission awarded to him by the order of the 23rd September 1882 he should receive as such Committee commission at the rate of five per cent, upon the value of the immoveable properties belonging to the estate of the lunatic which had already come and would come thereafter into his possession. Under the s...
Tag this Judgment!Nemchand Manaji Vs. R.D. Sethna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR796
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the Official Assignee, the G. I. P. Ry. Co. and others claiming possession from the first defendant of 97 bales of cotton and in default of possession being given the value of the said bales from the first and second defendants, and other relief.2. On the 11th October 1907, the second defendant filed then-affidavits of documents through Mr. Irvine, Assistant Traffic Superintendant. In para 2 Mr. Irvine, says : ' the defendant Co. object to produce the document set forth in the second part of the said schedule on the ground that they are by their nature privileged from production. ' In part II are set forth papers which passed between the Railway Company's officials relating to the subject matter in dispute since the threat of suit on the part of the plaintiff.3. On the 9th. June 1908 plaintiff took out this summons calling upon the second defendant to show cause why they should not forthwith properly and fully disclose all the pap...
Tag this Judgment!Datto Govind Kulkarni Vs. Pandurang Vinayak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR692
Chaubal, J.1. Antaji and Sadashiv were two joint Hindu brothers and the property in suit was the estate of the joint family consisting of the two brothers. Sadashiv died in 1876, leaving a widow Pavvati and two daughters. AfterSadashiv death his widow continued to live with Antaji, who had become by survivorship the sole owner of the family property. Antaji s wife died during his life-time, and in 1877 Antaji himself died, leaving no issue or nearer heir than his brother's widow Parvati, who, as the nearest gotraja sapinda alive, succeeded him. Parvati took only a widow's estate in the property she thus inherited and was in possession and enjoyment of it till 1899, in the July of which year she died. She had, however, a few days, before her death, adopted Pandurang, defendant 1, and the present dispute is between Pandurang, the adopted son, and the plaintiffs some of whom are the reversioners entitled to succeed to Antaji as his heirs after the termination of Parvati's widow's estate. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chandra Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR632
Batchelor, J.1. It is urged by Mr. Wadia that it is no longer open to us to admit this reference in view of the judgment of the Division Bench on the 29th January last. But when reference is made to that judgment, it will be seen that it is obiter and proceeds on a hypothetical and unascertained state of facts. We think, therefore, that the point is still open to us, especially as we can see no way in which the accused could be prejudiced by this opinion, and it was the accused themselves who in the Court below objected to the Sessions Judge disposing of the case. We hold that the interlocutory judgment of the former Bench does not debar us from accepting this reference. That being so, it is clear to us that we ought to accept it. We should do so even if it were irregular. Acting under the authority of Queen-Empress v. Jeyram Haribhai ILR (1895) 20 Bom. 215 we have no reason to suppose that the present reference is irregular.2. What has happened is this. The Jury were seised of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dayal Kanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR630
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an application to us in revision in which the petitioner asks the Court to set aside an order of the Districts Magistrate made on the 27th November 1907.2. The order was made with reference to a complaint for abuses which was proceeding before the Police Patel of Vengurla under? the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 14 of the Bombay Village Police Act VIII of 1867.3. The order which we are asked to set aside is as follows:-'As the Police Patel of Vengurla seems to be concerned more or less in this case, I, therefore, under Section 6 Act VIII of 1867, forbid him to try it. The complainant can go to the Third Class Magistrate Ratnagiri.'4. It is therefore clear that the Magistrate considered that he had authority to stop the proceedings in a case which had already commenced by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the Village Police Act. That section provides that ' the Police Patel shall subject to the orders of the Magistrate of the District, act unde...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Bombay Vs. Karim Tar Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR660
Macleod, J.1. This is a reference from the Collector of Bombay, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to Karim Tar Mahomed for certain land on Mazagon Road, which has been notified for acquisition by Government on behalf of the Municipality of Bombay on the 17th November 1904. The land is shown in pink on the plan Ex. A. It measures 3475 square yards with a frontage of 165 feet on Mazagon Road and 148 feet onValpakhadi Road and a mean depth of 170 feet on the Mazagon Road. At the date of the notice there was a bungalow and out-houses on the land but it is admitted that the land should be valued as vacant building land. The Collector has offered Rs. 15 a square yard and the claimant considering his land to be worth Rs. 25, applied to the Collector for a reference to this Court.2. The valuation cannot be based on what the property was producing at the time of the notice, nor have there been any recent sales of the land to guid...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.E. Dubash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR628
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The complainant in this case brought a charge of assault against the accused under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The first hearing appears to have been fixed for the 14th of February 1908, and upon that day the summons not having been served, the complainant appeared before the Magistrate and asked that the accused's name might be altered in the summons. The case was then adjourned until the 20th of February for service upon the accused of the amended summons.3. On the 20th of February the case was called on and the complainant did not appear.4. The Magistrate thereupon recorded this order :-'Struck off, Section 247.'5. We think it is clear from the terms of that order that the Magistrate must have had Section 247 before him and have intended to act under that section. But we cannot accede to the argument of Mr. Weldon that the words 'struck off' on the Magistrate's record are the same as 'acquit.' No doubt the Magistrate ought to have recorded an acquitta...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Kashinath Vs. Khanderao Antajirao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR625
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 622 of the Code made by the 5th defendant in a mortgage suit calling for the interference of the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.2. It appears that in the beginning of 1905 this suit was filed by a mortgagor against certain defendants one of whom is the present applicant, for redemption of a mortgage. At the time the suit was filed the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act had not been extended to the Thana District and therefore although the plaintiff in the title to the plaint described himself as an agriculturist, it was a matter of no importance and the allegation was disregarded by the defendant.3. At the time the suit was tried the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act had been extended to the Thana District. We are told it was so extended in the month of August 1905. At the trial notwithstanding the protest of the 5th defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge took the accounts of the mortgage upon the footing of the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Bayabai and ors. Vs. Haji Noor Muhammad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.146
Batchelor, J.1. The following tree shows the relation between the various defendants-appellants:Jusub Abba-Safurabai|------------------------------| |Abdulla Jan Mahorned-Bayabai.|Suleman.2. Abdulla is an insolvent, and the Official Assignee is the first, defendant in his place. Jan Mahomed died intestate in 1906, leaving his widow his only heir. The parties are Cutchi Menions, and the plaintiff is by profession a money-lender.3. The suit out of which this appeal arises is based on two hundis drawn by one Abdul Rehman in September 1904, in favour of Jusub Abba, and endorsed in the name of Jusub Abba by Abdulla to the plaintiff. Upon these same hundis the plaintiff brought an earlier suit, No. 863 of 1904, against Abdul Rehman, the drawer, and Justib Abba, the indorser, and in that suit obtained a decree against both the then defendants. That decree has remained unsaiisfied, and it is common ground that Jusub Abba died in February 1902 or over two years before the. institution of this s...
Tag this Judgment!The Surat City Municipality Vs. Tyabali Daudbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR622
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff who is a house owner in Surat brought this suit against the Surat City Municipality praying for an injunction restraining the Municipality from cutting off the water supply which had been provided for him under certain rules in force in the year 1898.2. The Municipality as defendants contend that under the rules which they have made in the year 1905, they are entitled to cut off the water connection with the plaintiff's house.3. Now the plaintiff occupies a house which is inhabited by not more than three families, and the water connection with that house is provided by a pipe half an inch in diameter for which under Rule 7 of the Municipal Rules of 1905 the plaintiff is chargeable Re. 1 a month.4. It is not suggested that the plaintiff has not paid the charge of Re. 1 a month for the water supplied to him, but it is said that he has allowed tenants in the house to use the water connection, and has therefore rendered himself liable to have his water sup...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »