Mumbai Court November 1909 Judgments
The Secretary of State Vs. Laldas Narandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR16
Chandavarkar, J.1. The respondent is the occupant of a land used for agricultural purposes and has been paying to Government assessment chargeable on 'land appropriated' for those purposes under Clause (a) of Section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. During the seasons when the land is not used for agricultural purposes, the respondent has been letting it out for stacking timber and deriving profit from this special user of the land. Government by the suit which has led to this appeal claim the right to impose additional assessment on the land on account of that special user. They rely on Clause (b) of Section 48, which provides that land revenue shall be chargeable ' upon land appropriated for any purpose from which any other profit or advantage than that ordinarily acquired by agriculture is derived.' The word ' appropriated ' means in its natural sense, ' made one's own,' and conveys the idea of exclusion. ' To appropriate ' anything for any purpose is to set it apart for that pur...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Namdeo Sakharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR135
1. These five are all cases under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859, disposed of by the same Magistrate, and they contain so many points in common that one judgment will suffice to dispose of them all. Act XIII of 1859 provides for certain method of dealing with an artificer, a workman, or a labourer who has received an advance of money on account of any work which he shall have contracted to perform. It is quite plain that the powers conferred on Magistrates, and the advantages given to employers by this Act can, unless great care is exercised, be used to interfere with the free competition of labour to secure adequate wages.2. It is very necessary, therefore, in all cases under this Act that the circumstances, which are supposed to bring them within the terms of the Act, should be carefully ascertained. The first thing to be ascertained is whether the artificer, workman or labourer entered into a valid contract and, if so, has wilfully and without lawful or reasonabl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Namdeo Sakhgaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.863
1. These five are all cases under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859, disposed of by the same Magistrate, and they contain so many points in common that one judgment will suffice to dispose of them all. Act XIII of 1859 provides for certain method of dealing with an artificer, a workman, or a labourer who has received an advance of money on account of any work which he shall have contracted to perform. It is quite plain that the powers conferred on Magistrates, and the advantages given to employers by this Act can, unless great care is exercised, be used to interfere with the free competition of labour to secure adequate wages.2. It is very necessary, therefore, in all cases under this Act, that the circumstances, which are supposed to bring them within the terms of the Act, should be carefully ascertained. The first thing to be ascertained is whether the artificer, workman or labourer entered into a valid contract and, if so, has wilfully and without lawful or reasonab...
Tag this Judgment!Ravji Mahadu Patil Vs. Sakuji Kaloji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR204
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case two points have been argued. First, that the suit is barred by limitation, and, secondly, that the defendant was entitled as an heir of Vithoji in preference to the plaintiffs. This latter point does not appear to have been argued in the District Court possibly because it was thought to be a hopeless point. The authorities are all against the defendant's contention, dating from the case of Nissar Mitrtojah v. Kowar Dhunwunt Roy (1863) 1 Marsh 609 up to that of Shome Shankar Rajendra Varere v. Rajesar Swami Jangam ILR (1898) All. 99 and Ramlinga Muppan v. Pavadai Goundan ILR (1901) Mad. 519. The contention is also opposed to the opinion expressed by the learned authors of West and Buhler's Hindu Law at page 83. There is no caste custom proved in this case to support the defendant's contention. (See also Mitakshara, Chap, I, Section II, placitum 31).2. With regard to the point of limitation, we agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shivlal Padma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR130
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question, in this case, is whether a Full Court of the Presidency Small Causes Court in Bombay has power to grant or revoke a sanction refused or granted by a single Judge of that Court. The determination of that question depends upon the further question whether the Full Court is a Court of appeal, or whether, if it is not a Court of appeal, it is a Court of ordinary original jurisdiction within the meaning of Clause 7 of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As regards the Full Court, it ought to be borne in mind that there is no mention of or provision for it in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. This has been pointed out in a decision of this Court in Behram v. Ardeshir ILR (1903) 27 Bom. 563 : 5 Bom. L.R. 555, As held there, it is a Court which has obtained its legality and status owing to a long continued practice. And there it was also held that, though no rules had been framed as to the exercise by the Full Court of any powers under the Act, it ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shiv Lal Padma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.862
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question, in this case, is whether a Full Court of the Presidency Small Causes Court in Bombay has power to grant or revoke sanction refused or granted by a single Judge of that Court. The determination of that question depends upon the further question whether the Full Court is a Court of appeal, or whether if it is not a Court of appeal, it is a Court of ordinary original jurisdiction within the meaning of Clause 7 of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As regards the Full Court, it ought to be borne in mind that there is no mention of or provision for it in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. This has been pointed out in a decision of this Court in Behram Kaikhushru Irani v. Ardeshir Kavasji 27 B. 563 : 5 Bom. L.R. 555. As held there, it is a Court which has obtained its legality and status owing to a long continued practice. And there it was also held that, though no rules had been framed as to the exercise by the Full Court of any powers under the...
Tag this Judgment!Nathubhai Kusandas Vs. Pranjivan Lalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR13
Chandavarkar, J.1. The decree, execution of which has been held by, both the lower Courts to be barred by the law of limitation, was one for partition of immoveable property passed on the 30th of June 1900, and directed that the plaintiff should not be entitled to execute it until he had paid Court fees. The present application for execution was made on the 27th of June 1906 by the plaintiff, who with it paid the Court fees into Court in fulfilment of the condition precedent to his right to execution. Prima facie the application is barred, having been made more than three years after the date of the decree. But the application is sought to be brought within time by reason of an application made for execution on the 27th of June 1903. The lower Courts have held that that application does not help the plaintiff, because it was not one made in accordance with law, as required by Article 179 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act. In the present case what the decree directed was that the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Adam Patel Vs. Ismail Moosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR169
Beaman, J.1. This suit has been brought by the plaintiff as one of the heirs of the deceased Aishabai to have her half share in the house in dispute distributed amongst her heirs. It has been resisted by defendants i, 2 and 3 as donees from Aishabai under a hiba-bil-evaz, dated the 11th of October 1898. The defence was originally two-fold. The defendant No. 2 contended, in his written statement, that he and his children, the defendants 1 and 3, had acquired a complete title to the property in suit against Aishabai by adverse possession, or, in the alternative, that Aishabai had given to them by the deed of gift in the form of hiba-bil-evaz all her rights, title and interest in the property in October 1898, and that the said gift was legal and binding and effected a valid transfer of the ownership under the Mahomedan law. On the face of it, these two defences are rather contradictory than alternative. For it is clear that if, as the defendant 2 alleged in his written statement and has r...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Moreshvar Vs. Kashibai Dattubhau
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR9
Chandavarkar, J.1. Both the lower Courts have held that the documents, on which the respondents relied in support of their case, were in the nature of a sale of immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100, and that, as those documents were not registered as required by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and by Section 17 of the Registration Act, the respondents had not acquired the right to exemption from assessment which they pleaded in defence to the appellant's claim. But ' sale,' as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, is 'a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised.' And, as held by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court in Samaratmal v. Govind (1901) I.L.B. 25 Bom. 696 : 3 Bom. L.R. 384, the word ' price' is used in the sections relating to sales in the Transfer of Property Act in the sense of money. In the present case, it is found by the Courts below that the consideration for the transac...
Tag this Judgment!Rhimbai Jamalbhoy Vs. Mariam Abdul Rasool
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR149
Basil Scott Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a suit filed in the Court of the Resident at Aden that an order dismissing an appeal in the suit under Section 551 of the Civil Procedure Code may be quashed and that the Resident may be required to state a case upon certain questions specified in an application, dated the 23rd of September 1908, made the day before he delivered judgment in the appeal, it being contended that the obligation to state such a case was imposed upon him by the provisions of Section 8 of the Aden Act II of 1864.2. A preliminary objection was taken, on behalf of the opponents, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with any order passed by the Resident, in the exercise of his civil jurisdiction under the Aden Act, on the ground that the Resident being only subject to the High Court of Bombay, in certain specified particulars under the Act, with regard to civil jurisdiction, his Court could not be said to be a Court subord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »