Mumbai Court November 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rahimbhai Jamalbhoy Vs. Mariam Abdul Rasul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.867
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, op 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 subordinate to the High Cou...
Jasoda Chhotu Vs. Chhotu Mannu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.836
1. It is contended before us on the authority of Aklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem 31 C 849; 8 C.W.N. 705 that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, out of which this second appeal arises, did not lie in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, by whom it was tried, because, according to the Bombay Civil Courts Act, that Court has jurisdiction to try no suit other than that the subject-matter of which is of the value of less than Rs. 5,000, whereas a suit for restitution of conjugal rights (it is urged) is not one the subject-matter of which can be valued. What is meant by this argument is, as we understand it, that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights is not one the subject-matter of which can be precisely and definitely valued. In such cases the law leaves it to the plaintiff to put his own valuation on the plaint and accepts it for the purposes of jurisdiction unless it is vitiated by some improper motive SUCH as a deliberate design to give the Court a jurisdict...
Ramrao Govindrao Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.832
1. One Pandurangrao, the grandfather of the plaintiff and the second defendant, was the owner of one-fourth share of the Hebli estate in the Dharwar district. On his death in 1899, Government on the ground that the property was Saranjam resumed. Pandurangrao's one-fourth share and granted it to Narsingrao. That order was cancelled by the Secretary of State and by his orders the property was granted to Vithalrao, the second defendant. 2. The Collector of Dharwar, as the guardian of Vithalrao, has taken the property into his possession and the plaintiff, who claims to hold as one of the heirs of Pandurangrao on the footing of the estate being a Sarva Inam of Pandurangrao, sued the Secretary of State and Vithalrao for a declaration of title and for possession. He seeks to have it declared that the immovable property in suit is the Sarva Inam property of the plaintiff and cannot be taken from his possession by Government or its officers or re-granted to any one else. 3. The question whethe...
Emperor Vs. Ganesh Damodar Savarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR105
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Nasik, convicting the appellant Ganesh Damodar Savarkar, of the offences under Sections 124A and 121 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, of exciting disaffection towards His Majesty the Emperor and the Government established by law in British India and of abetting the waging of war against His Majesty. The appellant has been sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge to two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 124A, and to transportation for life with forfeiture of all property to the Crown under Section 121.2. The offences arise out of four, from among a series of eighteen, poems, published in a book entitled Laghu Abhinava Bharata Mala, i.e., A Short Series for New India, and recorded as exhibit 6 as part of the evidence in the case. The four poems are those numbered in the book as 5, 7, 9 and 17, respectively. Of poem No. 17 only verses 4 to 7 form the subject-matter of the offences pro...
Ardeshir Shapurji Narielwala Vs. Manchershaw Shapurji Narielwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR53
Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned Judge, from whose decree this appeal has been preferred, has found, on his view of the facts and law, that there was neither a gift to nor a trust in favour of Virbai by her husband Shapurji Sorabji Narielwala in respect of the amount of Ks. 75,000, which is now in dispute. Accordingly, the learned Judge has allowed the claim made in the plaint, holding the appellants, who were administrators of the estate of the said Narielwala, guilt)' of a breach of trust by reason of their having paid the amount to Virbai instead of distributing it among the residuary heirs to the estate.2. In supporting the appeal the learned Advocate-General has conceded that there was no gift. He has challenged the decree of Beaman J. on two grounds. First, that there was a trust in favour of Virbai; and, secondly, that even if there was no trust, the learned Judge's finding on the evidence that the amount was paid by the appellants to Virbai with the consent of the first responden...
The Government of Bombay Vs. Esufali Salebhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR34
Chandavarkar, J.1. In my opinion, Macleod J, from whose decree passed upon a reference from the Collector of Bombay, under the Land Acquisition Act, this is an appeal, has taken too narrow a view of the Act, not supported either by the language and object of its provisions or the law relating to the rights of the Crown.2. The question for decision arises under the following circumstances, shortly stated.3. The land in dispute having been, in the opinion of Government, required for a public purpose, a declaration to that effect was published by them, and the Collector of Bombay adopted the preliminary steps and observed the formalities, required by the Act, for the compulsory acquisition of the property. The land had buildings on it. The respondent, who claimed both the land and buildings as owner, having declined the amount of compensation offered by Government on the ground of inadequacy, the Collector commenced an inquiry into the value of the property for the purpose of determining ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›