Mumbai Court July 1908 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR848
Davak, J.1. Gentlemen of the Jury, I am afraid, gentlemen, your patience has been sorely taxed during the eight days which this trial has taken. I do not propose to tax your patience at any great length in the case because the case on both the sides has been very clearly and fully put before you. I now ask your earnest attention to what I am going to say and before I say anything else I think it is right to realise that it would be the merest and the idlest of pretences to say that you have not heard of this case before or have not heard of the accused before. I have no doubt that this case has been discussed before this by your friends, and by yourselves and I think the accused must often have been spoken of in your hearing by your friends and others. But need I tell you-I feel that I need not tell you-that it is your duty to confine the consideration of the questions that are submitted to ' you in this case entirely to what you have heard and read within the four corners of this room...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Naoroji Sorabji Talati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR965
Russell, J.1. An important question arises on each of these rules which were argued before me on Wednesday last parti' cularly having regard to the fact that it has been suggested that the proposed New Insolvent Act for Presidency Towns in India shall not be an Imperial Statute.2. For if I am right in the conclusions I have arrived at it is highly desirable that the Insolvent Act for Presidency Towns should continue to be an Imperial Statute.3. On the 4th March 1908, M. P. Talati was called on to show Cause why he should not deliver to the Official Assignee of Bombay goods of the value of fifteen lacs, belonging to the Insolvent's Firm now in his possession, or the sale proceeds thereof, under Section 26 of the Indian Insolvent Act.4. On the game day the same person was ordered to attend the Court for examination under Section 36 and on 15th April 1908 he by his constituted attorney took out a rule calling on the ppposing creditor to shew cause why that order should not be set aside.5....
Tag this Judgment!Dossibai Framji Markar Vs. Cooverbai Hormasji Markar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR758
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In this case the defendants, who were executors under the will of a Parsee gentleman named Framji Cawasji Marker, have assented to a certain annuity payable to the plaintiff and paid it for a period of fifteen years after the testator's death.2. Then for the period between the 1st of June 1905 and 31st of July 1907, they did not pay. She accordingly sued them in the Presidency Small Cause Court for the arrears of annuity.3. It is contended before us that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit by reason of the prohibition contained in Section 19(k) of Act XV of 1882, which removes from the jurisdiction of that Court suits to enforce a trust.4. We are of opinion that this is a suit in the nature of a suit in trover such as that which was the subject of discussion in Williams v. Lee (1745) 3Atk. 223, or a suit for money had and received by the defendants for the use of the plaintiff, and we do not think it is a suit of the nature contemplated in Clau...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Bombay Vs. Suleman Somji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1065
Andrew Scoble, J.1. The facts relating to this appeal are not in dispute, and may be shortly stated.2. Somji Parpia died on the 15th February 1885. He left eight sons, four by his first wife (hereafter called the elder sons) and four (hereafter called the younger sons) by his second wife Labai, who also survived him. By his will, he left all his property to his elder sons, subject to a charge of Rs. 30.000 in favour of his widow Labai and his younger sons. Both Courts in India have found that this legacy was charged upon the property in suit and their Lordships agree with this decision.3. After their father's death, the elder sons entered upon large useness transactions, under the style of Somji Parpia& Co., and in the course of their business became indebted to the Bank of Bombay in respect of advances on bills drawn by the firm inBombay upon a branch of the firm at Indore. To secure these advances, the elder sons, on the 1st September 1890, deposited certain title deeds relating to t...
Tag this Judgment!Shivajirao Madhavrao Vs. Vasantrao Madhavrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR778
Knight, J.1. This suit is a pendant to the case of Vasantrao v. Anandrao (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 925, decided by the appellate Court in September 1904, and subsequently by the Privy Council : (1907)9BOMLR595 .2. The facts of the case, so far as they concern the question now before me, are the following. In 1889 there was a joint Hindu family consisting of one Kashinath, his two sons Ganpatrao and Madhavrao. Ganpatrao's six sons and Madhavrao's only son Vasantrao This family was possessed of considerable ancestral property. In January 1889, Vasantrao being then some five years of age Madhavrao found himself heavily involved in debt; and in consideration of his father's Kashinath paying Rs. 5,000 'in settling the debts and for various other considerations,' Madhavrao executed a deed of release in his favour relinquishing all interest in the family property.3. In 1901 Vasantrao instituted a suit against Ganpatrao s sons (Ganpatrao and Kashinath both being dead) to obtain a share in the ancestr...
Tag this Judgment!Jyanibegam FakiroddIn Vs. Umrav Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR764
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sue the defendants to recover possession by partition of 3/4 the of the property of one Akbaralli.2. The defendant, who is Akbaralli's widow, is in possession of some of the property of the deceased. The defendants are in possession of a house which forms part of the same estate.3. The plaintiffs' share in the inheritance is 3/4th that of the defendant3/4 th.4. The defendant inter alia pleaded that the plaintiffs could not sue for partition without defendant receiving at least Rs. 2,000 for her dower for which she contended the property in her possession was liable.5. Upon an issue 'Whether the defendant was entitled to dower, and if so, to what amount' the Subordinate Judge found that she was entitled to 40,000 Ashrafis (Rs. 3,00,000) but that the claim was time-barred. He also held that the dower had been remitted by the defendant but doubted whether the remission was effectual. He passed a decree for plaintiffs forth of the property mentioned in th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babulal Kanaiyalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR761
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The accused and his wife were living together in a house in Ahmedabad and were liable for Rs. 2-1-0, in respect of privy tax for the house they were living in under Section 82 of Act III of 1901. A bill for the sum claimed for the tax was presented to the accused although the bill itself was made out in the name of his wife. The bill not having been paid notice of demand in the statutory form prescribed in Schedule B was served upon the accused and on his failure to pay a warrant was served upon him by the complainant Lakshmishankar Maganlal who was a clerk in the Cess-collection Department of the Ahmedabad Municipality. When the warrant of attachment was taken to the accused for execution according to law the accused obstructed the complainant in the execution of the warrant. For this he has been charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no doubt that he is guilty if the complainant was a public servant executing his duty within the meaning of...
Tag this Judgment!Atar Singh Vs. Thakar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR790
Collins, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab varying a decree of the District Judge of Amritsar. The suit was brought by Thakar Singh and his brother, Kehr Singh, minors, by their mother acting as next friend, to set aside a deed of sale made on the 7th May 1894 by their father Dyal Singh to the appellants and certain other persons as purchasers, on the ground that the lands, the subject-matter of the sale, were, in the view of the Hindu law, ancestral, and that the sale was not necessary, and was for a fictitious consideration and in fraud of the rights of the plaintiffs' father, Dyal Singh, as next heir and reversioner on the death of the widow of Dhanna Singh, the deceased owner. Kehr Singh died while the suit wag pending. The only question in dispute on this appeal is whether the lands were ancestral. The District Judge has held that they were not, the Chief Court has reversed his decision and held that they were.2. It is not disputed that the onus...
Tag this Judgment!Parashram Hanmanta Vs. Balmukund Lachiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR752
Batchelor, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Desai for the respondents to the effect that in this case no second appeal lies. That objection is founded upon the argument that the order passed by the District Judge is an order under Section 312 of the Civil Procedure Code. If that is the real character of the order, it follows that under Sub-section 16 of Section 388 no second appeal is permissible. With a view to decide this question it is requisite to see whether the order appealed from is an order under Section 312 or not, and to that end we must look to the application which the order refuses. If that application, in the words of Section 311, is an application 'to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity in publishing or conducting it,' then no doubt the order falls under Section 312.2. Now the application here seeks to have the sale set aside on the ground that no notice has been issued to the applicant in the matter and that in consequence the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Bala Vs. Ganu Abaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR749
Basil Scott, C.J.1.This is a suit which was filed by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain property which they alleged had come into the possession of the defendants under an order dated the 21st of November 1900 made under Section 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure and they bring this suit under the reservation in favour of such a suit contained in the last paragraph of that section.2. The suit is brought nearly five years after the passing of the order above referred to and it has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation under the provisions of Article 14 of the Limitation Act.3. We are of opinion that it should not have been so dismissed.4. Article 14 applies to suits 'to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for.'5. In our opinion an order passed by a Judge under Section 332 is not such an act or order as is referred to in Article 14. A Judge...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »