Mumbai Court August 1908 Judgments
Manubai Yamunabai Vs. Sakhubai Keshav Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.484
1. It is not clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge whether Sections 7 and 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act were present to his mind. Section 7 makes a distinction between appointing a guardian and declaring a person to be one. A guardian is declared when, for instance, he has been appointed under some independent instrument such as a will. By the declaration the Court merely gives effect to the appointment. In the case of guardian so declared the Court may hold him incompetent and remove him from the guardianship on any of the grounds specified in Section 39.2. We think, therefore, that we cannot accept the decision of the District Judge. We must reverse his order and send the case back in order to enable him to dispose of the petitions on the merits and with due regards to Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act.3. Costs to abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Esmail Ebrahim Vs. Haji Jan Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR904
Russell, J.1. This case raises a point, which, having regard to the way, we know, business is sometimes done in these Courts, is a matter of some importance.2. The plaintiff filed the suit to recover a large sum of money, from the defendant, and at the time of the hearing, when the case was called on, neither of his counsel was present. However, to enable them to come and appear, defendant's Counsel raised twenty-two issues. At the end of that time, I announced, that I would give a limited time-I think I said five minutes-: for the plaintiff to appear, of course meaning thereby obviously, I either by himself or by his counsel. Then another counsel got up I and said he was instructed to apply for an adjournment but was not instructed on the hearing, and I refused the adjournment. The plaintiff's counsel did not turn up within the five minutes-in fact he did not turn up till nearly about twenty minutes later- and accordingly I dismissed the suit.3. Now, it is admitted that this is an app...
Tag this Judgment!Gunnaji Bhavaji Vs. Makanji Khushalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR969
Russell, J.1. This case raises an important point of practice.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff's firm against the defendants for a sum of over Rs. 6,000 on the usual commission agency account in respect of spices and grain and the suit was admitted on the 15th October, 1907. Para 4 of the plaint relies upon an adjustment dated the 18th September 1899, (obviously, therefore, the plaintiff is barred) whereupon a sum of over Rs. 8,000 was found due to the plaintiff. The para goes on:Thereafter plaintiffs received from time to time various sums aggregating to Rs. 4,101 from the defendants. The last of such payments was made on or about Magsar Vad 13th Samvat 1961, Marwari, (5th December 1895). Copy of the writing passed on making this payment is hereto annexed and marked B.3. Now I have read Ex. B to the plaint; and that runs as follows:-Release 1 one to Sha Gunnaji Bhawaji of Bombay written by Bhai Bamchand Khooshal of Goregaum I give this in writing that I had a share in your shop ...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Bombay Vs. Merwanji Muncherji Cama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR907
Batchelor, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is, as to the compensation which should be awarded to the claimants, the brothers Cama. in respect of certain land of theirs which has been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition A.ct for the purposes of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company. The land acquired comprised a total area of 85.799 sq. yds., and consisted of four several parcels; but with three of these parcels we are not now concerned as the award made in respect of them has been accepted. The single parcel to which this appeal is confined measures 14,817 acres, or 71,714 sq. yds, having a frontage of 1,268 ft. on the Parel Road, and an average depth of about 500 ft. It is the ' front land ' referred to in the judgment under appeal, and was notified for acquisition in April 1904. The brothers Cama claimed Rs. 8,37,780 for the land. The Collector awarded Rs. 3,93,143, to which were to be added Rs. 7,576 the value of the materials of the building standin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tribhuvandas P. Mangrolevala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR801
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, convicting the appellant of two offences one under Section 124A and the other under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code-arising out of each of two articles, published in a Gujarati newspaper called the Hind Swarajya. Several points of law have been urged by theappellant V counsel, Mr. Baptista. The first of them is that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. This objection to jurisdiction is based upon the ground that there is upon the record no evidence of the publication of the newspaper in Bombay. But three witnesses examined for the Crown state that they received the newspaper in Bombay and there is the declaration made by the appellant himself under the Press Act. The mere fact that two of the witnesses are servants of Government who received the newspaper as its agents, cannot in law render their evidence inadmissible on the question of publ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tribhovandas Purshottam Das Mangrole Walla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.641
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, convicting the appellant of two offences, one under Section 124A and the other under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of each of two articles, published in a Gujarati newspaper called the Hind Swarajya. Several points of law have been urged by the appellant's Counsel, Mr. Baptista. The first of them is that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. This objection to jurisdiction is based upon the ground that there is upon the record no evidence of the publication of the newspaper in Bombay. But three witnesses examined for the Crown state that they received the newspaper in Bombay; and there is the declaration made by the appellant himself under the Press Act. The mere fact that two of the witnesses are servants of Government, who received the newspaper as its agents, cannot in law render their evidence inadmissible on the question of...
Tag this Judgment!Uderam Kesaji Vs. Hyderally Abdul Kayum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1141
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit praying for a declaration that he is entitled to avoid the lease to him by the defendant of certain premises, dated the 18th October 1907, as modified by a writing of the 6th December, 1907. Before this suit was filed the defendant had filed two suits Nos. 5,609 and 12,929 of 1908 in the Small Causes Court for rent due under the said lease. The plaintiff now moves for an order, and injunction of this Court to restrain the defendant from proceeding with the said Small Causes Court suits and from filing further suits with reference to the said lease pending the hearing of this suit. It cannot be denied that as the plaintiff's liability to pay rent fender the lease depends on whether he will be successful in ayoiding it, it is highly desirable that these suits should be stayed provided the defendant is in no way prejudiced thereby. Mr. Robertson, counsel for defendant, however, argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the injunctio...
Tag this Judgment!Ranu Shivji Barate Vs. Laxmanrao Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR943
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The deed upon which the plaintiff relies being a mortgage deed to secure repayment of Rs. 14 00 must in order to be effective be attested by two witnesses (see Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act). Assuming that we may take the signature of the Sub-Registrar who was bound to attest under the provisions of Section 63A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act as that of an attesting witness there is no one else whose name appears on the document who purports to sign as an attesting witness. But it is argued that the writer of the deed who in concluding the writing of the body of the document states that it is written by him can be treated as an attesting witness. It was not suggested in the first Court that he could be regarded in this light but the appellate Court relying upon a passage in Gour's Transfer of Property Act and upon the case of Radha Kishen v. Fateh Ali Rarn I L R (1898) All. 532, has held that his evidence was admissible as that of an attesting...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jaffar Haji Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1052
1. In this case the accused has been fined Rs. 20, for carrying meat in a bullock cart exposed to public view contrary to the provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Cantonment Code, 1899.2. The accused is a meat contractor and although the Cantonment Magistrate has found him responsible for the act of his servant in carrying meat, which had been condemned by the Cantonment Authorities, in a cart exposed to public view, it is not found that the meat was so carried with the knowledge of the accused.3. The question of the accused's liability must turn upon the interpretation to be placed upon Section 66 (1) (a) (vi), which provides that ''whoever in any street or public place within the cantonment carries meat exposed to public view,' shall be punishable.4. An examination of the other Sub-sections of Section 66(1), (a), leads to the conclusion that that the offences that are aimed against are personal offences and not offences which can be committed by delegation. We therefore think that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›