Mumbai Court June 1909 Judgments
Peruri Suryanarayan and Co. Vs. Gullapudi Chinna Narsingham and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.133
Macleod, J.1. The question in this notice is whether when the parties to a suit agree to refer the question in dispute to arbitration, one of the parties can apply to the Court under Section 19 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings.2. It is contended by Mr. Robertson for the respondents that by Section 2 of the Act it is clear that the Act only deals with cases where references to Arbitration are made before proceedings are taken and, therefore, it would follow that unless there has been a Submission to arbitration before the suit is filed, an application for stay of proceedings cannot be made under Section 19. This is supported by the decision of the Appeal Court in Calcutta in the case of Ramjidas Poddar v. Howse 35 C.199 in which the learned Judges were decidedly of opinion that the Act only applied to cases where there had been a submission to arbitration before the commencement of legal proceedings. That case, of course, is entitled to the very best consideration I can gi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Das Vs. Bapuji Ghelabhai Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.771
1. This is an appeal from order passed in execution proceedings. The decree in question was made on the 3rd September 1901. On the 31st July 1903, the judgment-creditor applied for execution and in that application the Court was requested to issue a warrant of attachment. Notice was issued under Section 248 of the old Civil Procedure Code. The case was fixed for the 5th August next following. Notice was twice returned unserved, but ultimately it was served and an affidavit of service was filed by the creditor on. the 11th November 1903. Thereupon warrant issued on the 16th November. On the 9th December 1903, the Court endorsed on the application for execution a note that as a third person had undertaken to pay the sum of Rs. 8, the judgment-creditor did not wish to proceed with this execution. On the 7th November 1906, this present application was made. It is admittedly out of time, unless it can be saved by some steps taken in aid of execution after the 31st July 1903. The two inciden...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Narayan Lokhande Vs. Vinayak Gangadhar Purandhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.769
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the mortgagee to recover the mortgage debt, with costs and further interest by sale of the mortgaged property. The first defendant replied that he was an agriculturist and claimed the benefits of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The lower Courts have allowed the first defendant the benefits of the Act, and the question involved in this appeal is whether he is entitled to them in this case. The particular shape which they have assumed is the form of instalments which have been granted at the rate of Rs. 150 a year. Whether the first defendant is an agriculturist or not turns upon the construction of Sub-section (2) of Clause (6) of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. It is there provided that 'the term 'agrictlturist', when used with reference to any suit or proceeding, shall inculude a person who, when any part of the liability which forms the subject of that suit or proceeding was incurred, was an agriculturist withi...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanji Jamshedji Lakdawalla Vs. Burjorji Naserwanji Vakil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.770
Chandavarkar, A.C.J.1. The respondents brought this suit to recover possession of the lands in dispute from the appellant alleging that from time to time a Committee of Managers had been appointed at Surat for the purpose of managing the properties of the Parsi Anjuman of that place; that the respondents were the present Committee, the first respondent being Chairman thereof; that the lands in dispute belonged to the Parsi Anjuman and had been in the management and possession of the respondents. They sought to recover possession in the capacity of managers. They also alleged that the appellant was a mere trespasser and was, therefore, liable to be ejected.2. The first issue in the Court of first instance was: 'Whether the plaintiffs are the managers of the property of the Parsi Anjuman of Surat.' The appellant applied to the Subordinate Judge that that issue might be modified by adding to it the words 'appointed lay the Parsi Anjuman.' The Subordinate Judge thought it was unnecessary t...
Tag this Judgment!ismailji Yusufali Vs. Raghunath Lachiram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.779
Chandavarkar, A.C.J.1. The facts in this second appeal are shortly these: One Yusufalli, father of the appellant, obtained from Government a lease of certain salt-pans under a certain license, one condition of which was that the lessee shall not sub-let the salt-pans without the written permission of the Collector. Without any such permission, however, Yusufalli sub-let to the respondent, who, as security for the performance of the conditions binding on him under the sub-lease, deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000 with Yusufalli. The respondent accordingly entered on possession of the salt-pans under his sub-lease. Sometime after that, Tusufalli having died, the appellant his son, obtained a fresh lease with a fresh license from Government and the respondent obtained a sub-lease from the appellant on the same terms as those contained in the sub-lease obtained from Yusufalli. For this sub-lease the appellant had obtained no permission from the Collector as required by the license. The responden...
Tag this Judgment!Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil Vs. Somappa Tammangauda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.809
1. This appeal raises an important question of Hindu law, which may be stated as follows: When a married Hindu, having a son, is given in adoption by his natural father, does the Hindu's son also, like his father, lose the gotra and rights of inheritance in the family of his birth and acquire the gotra and a right of succession to the property of the family into which the Hindu is adopted2. The parties to this second appeal are Jains, but, in the absence of any special custom, Jains are governed by the ordinary Hindu law: Bhagwandas Tejmal v. Rajmal 10 B.H.C.R. 241; Sheo Singh Mai v. Musammat Dakho 51. A. 87 : 1 A. 688 : 6 N.W.P.H.C.R. 3823. No special custom, departing from the ordinary Hindu law of adoption, has been set up in the present case, and the question above stated must be determined with reference to that law.4. The Subordinate Judge (Mr. V.V. Phadke), who tried the suit out of which this appeal arises, has decided the question in the affirmative, mainly on the strengh of a...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedbhoy Habibbhoy Vs. Sir Dinshaw M. Petit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.124
Beaman, J.1. The question in this case is whether certain of the defendants are precluded from contesting the plaintiff's allegation that the property in his hands is his self-acquired property by the decision in Ahmedhhoy Ilubibhhoy v. Cassumbhoy Ahmedhhoy 12 B. 280. And this question breaks up into two main parts, first, whether this point was in fact decided in Ahmedbhoy's case 12 B. 280. Next, whether if it, was so decided, that decision constitutes resjudicata against the defendants concerned.2. With reference to the first of these points, it is material to quote their Lordships' actual words, which are : this is sufficient .for the decision of the case,' that is to say, their finding upon the point with which they had just dealt is sufficient to dispose of the case. But they go on to say: 'We think it advisable to express an opinion on the question &c.; and, therefore, they proceed to discuss the evidence relating to the character of the property in Ahmedbhoy's hands and come to ...
Tag this Judgment!Chabildas Lallubhai Vs. Ramdas Chabildas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.257
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that the properties therein referred to or so many of them as are within this Court's jurisdiction, are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff. Perhaps the most convenient way of disposing of it -will be to follow the main lines of the written argument put in for the plaintiff by his learned Counsel Mr. Inverarity. That I suppose is the best case which, upon the most deliberate and full consideration, plaintiff's counsel could make out for him : and while, as the sequal will show, it is not the best case the plaintiff has, its method brings out the chief points and contentions of both sides.2. The plaintiff's case is different against different defendants. It has to be considered (1) against the after-born children of the plaintiff's second wife; (2) against Ramdas and Karsondas (the latter now deceased) and their childern, some of whom were and some of whom were not born at the date of the release in 1889. There is also a separate c...
Tag this Judgment!Virji Bhagwan Vs. Bai Amba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.744
1. This is an application for revision of the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, convicting the petitioners of the offence of defamation. The complainant in the case is a woman belonging to the same caste as the petitioners. At a meeting of the caste an accusation was brought and a sentence of' ex-communication pronounced against her. The complainant prosecuted the petitioners for defamation, alleging that the accusation against her was false that the sentence had been passed behind her back and that the slander had been published by the petitioners without any justification or good faith.2. The learned Magistrate has found upon the evidence that the sentence of ex-communication was communicated to the members of the caste only; but he holds that the petitioners cannot claim privilege and bring their act within any of the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, because the meeting of the caste at which the accusation against the woman was considered and at which t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›