Mumbai Court September 1908 Judgments
In Re: Narsinha C. Kelkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1040
Basil Scott, C.J.1. On the 16th September, we granted a rule, at the instance of the Advocate-General, calling on Narsinha Chintaman Kelkar as editor and publisher of the 'Mahratta' newspaper, to show cause why he should not be committed, or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court in 1 respect of an article published by him in the issue of the said newspaper of the 26th of July, 1908, containing certain contemptuous and defamatory matter of, and concerning Mr. Justice Davar, one of the Judges of this Court. The accused has put in an affidavit in which he admits that He wrote the article, but defends it as fair and legitimate comment, on a matter of public interest (namely, the trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak) written after the trial was finished in the discharge of his duty as a journalist.2. The article which is in English and divided into seven paragraphs suggests very plainly in the third paragraph that at the trial the conviction of the accused was secured by Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Govind Venkatesh Yalgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1047
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order, passed by the Cantonment Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, convicting the petitioner Govind Venkatesh Yalgi of an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in that he (the petitioner) disobeyed the order duly promulgated by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. The orders in question found by the lower Court to have been disobeyed by the petitioner are two. The first of them was issued by the District Magistrate on the 20th of April last and ran as follows:-Whereas it appears that the above persons or some of them have recently been sending boys and other persons to patrol in front of the liquor shops in Belgaum city and whereas the Police have found it impossible to secure evidence against the persons who have obstructed the public from entering liquor-shops and whereas this picketing if it continues is likely to cause a disturbance now therefore I,B. A. Brendon, District Magistrate, Belgaum, do require each o...
Tag this Judgment!Magoomal Jethanand Vs. Hamid BIn Ali BIn Kamil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1002
Macleod, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs have taken out a summons against the defendant to show cause why the counterclaim for Rs. 25,000 made by the defendant against them in his written statement should not be excluded from this suit and why he should not be directed to file a separate suit.2. The defendant was arrested before judgment under an order of this Court but was released on shewing cause. He had then the choice between claiming compensation under Section 491 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which he would be limited to a claim of one thousand rupees, or instituting a separate suit. He has declined to exercise his right to claim compensation under Section 491 but he has claimed Rs. 25,000 as damages for wrongful and malicious arrest by a counterclaim in his written statement. No doubt, Rule 122 is very wide and enables the defendant to counterclaim on account of any cause of action he may have against the plaintiffs, but at the same time the plaintiffs can come to Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Jehangir C. Jehangir Vs. the Hope Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1057
Macleod, J.1. This is an application by the first defendant Company for the execution of a decree nisi dated the 26th January 1904, passed in this suit which was brought by the plaintiff' as first mortgagee of the defendant Company. Under that decree it was ordered that upon the defendants or any of them paying into Court on behalf of the plaintiff, etc. 2. There was no provision made in the decree for the way in which the account contemplated should be taken. On the 3rd December 1907 an order : (1907)9BOMLR1380 , was made by Mr. Justice Davar on a rule taken out by the defendant Company that the plaintiff should pass his accounts as first mortgagee in possession and having regard to all the directions in the decree before the Commissioner and the Commissioner was directed to take such accounts. This order was not to be enforced for two months and if the plaintiff within that time filed a suit to establish an agreement made by him with the defendant Company on the 3rd October 1905 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarmal Bharamal Vs. Surajmal Govindram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.441
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question in this case is whether the custom set up by the plaintiff is proved. The learned Judge in the Court below has held the custom not proved upon the ground that, according to the witnesses both for the plaintiff and the defendant, what is proved is that the constituent should be paid the money due to him by his pakka adatia at the place where he so desires The learned Judge has also held that as the plaintiff had not given any directions on that point, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the suit did not lie.2. Now, it is to be observed at the outest that the learned Judge has to some extent misapprehended most of the evidence on the custom set up by the plaintiff. The version he has given of some of the evidence is plainly different from what the witnesses have actually said. The effect of the evidence of the witnesses both of the plaintiff and the dependent is summarized by Batty J., as follows: 'The...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarmal Bhurmal Vs. Surajmal Govindram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1230
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question in this case is whether the custom set up by the plaintiff is proved. The learned Judge in the Court below has held the custom not proved upon the ground that according to the witnesses both for the plaintiff and the defendant what is proved is that the constituent should be paid the money due to him by his pakka adatia at the place where he so desires. The learned Judge has also held that as the plaintiff had not given any directions on that point, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the suit did not lie. 2. Now it is to be observed at the outset that the learned Judge has to some extent misapprehended most of the evidence on the custom set up by the plaintiff. The version he has given of some of the evidence is plainly different from what the witnesses have actually said. The effect of the evidence of the witnesses both of the plaintiff and the defendant is summarized by Batty J. as follows:-' The re...
Tag this Judgment!Monosseh Jacob Monosseh Vs. Shapurji Hormusji Harver
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1004
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff sues for the balance due on two mortgages executed by the defendant, (1) on the 5th June 1905 to secure an advance of Rs. 22,000 ; (2) on the 23rd February 1900 to secure a further advance of Rs. 15,000.2. After the suit was filed the plaintiff apprehending that defendant was not of sound mind obtained an order for the appointment of defendant's brother Sorabjee as guardian ad litem. It is now contended that the plaintiff cannot recover on the ground that the defendant when he executed the said mortgages was not of sound mind and that therefore he was not competent to contract within the meaning of Section 12 of the Contract Act.3. Defendant's sister Bai Aimai died in October 1902 and under her will defendant became entitled to a legacy of Rs. 4,000 and a fifth share in the residue of her estate, which was sworn for purposes of probate at nearly four lakhs. This one-fifth share was the subject of the abovementioned mortgages. Defendant was present at the rea...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR973
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is a rule granted by us on a petition for a certificate that the decision of the judge and jury in the case of Emperor v. B.G. Tilak : (1908)10BOMLR848 is a fit subject for appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. Before granting the rule we. required counsel for the petitioner to specify the grounds upon which he was prepared to support his application. He then argued that a certificate should be granted as prayed for each of the leasons specified in paras 32 to 35 of the petition. After hearing his arguments we decided that it was unnecessary to call on the Crown to show cause upon any points, except points (h)(8) and (t) of para 32 of the petition and we accordingly granted a rule upon those points only.3. The rule has now been argued. We can only grant the required certificate if in our opinion the case is a fit one for appeal. The test of fitness is furnished by various decisions of the Judicial Committee which show the circumstances under which they will enter...
Tag this Judgment!Nippon Menkwa Kabyshika Kaisha Vs. Gurmukrai Sukhanand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1024
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendant for damages for breach of contract. Defendant had agreed to purchase 500 bales of cotton and took delivery of 400 bales. On the 16th March 1908 plaintiffs had sent the defendant a delivery order issued by Messrs. Dellaporta and Patel which had come to plaintiff through two intermediate purchasers for the remaining 100 bales. Defendant failed to take delivery and after filing his written statement applied for leave to issue a third party notice against Messrs. Gulraj Singhanee to whom, he had handed plaintiff's delivery order in fulfilment of his contract with them. The application does not appear to have been made on affidavit, as it should have been.2. The third party filed his appearance and the defendant has taken out this summons for directions. The plaintiff and the third party ask me to refuse to give directions.3. In the first place it has been argued that the application, for the issue of the notice was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Meherbai Vs. Hormasji N. Motivala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1019
Chandavarkar, J.1. The eighth issue raised in the lower Court is in these terms:-'Has the plaintiff been guilty of adultery with Sorabji Nowroji Actor, or Edalji ArdeshirTeacher, and others.' The finding of the Delegates is as follows:-'No satisfactory evidence regarding Meherbai plaintiff's misconduct with any. particular individual, but there is evidence sufficient to raise a strong presumption of her general misconduct, that is, of adultery.' It is contended before us that this issue was improperly framed inasmuch as by charging the plaintiff with misconduct not only with the two persons named in the issue but with 'others,' it required her to meet a vague charge founded on mere suspicion. It does not appear that the issue in the form in which the last part of it was framed was objected to in the Court below. Evidence 'appears to have been led on it by both parties. It is too late now for the plaintiff to raise the objection that the issue should have been confined to the charge of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »