Mumbai Court November 1910 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.
The Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Siva Virchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR19
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application under s. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. There is no appearance for the opponent. The petitioner was the defendant, a Mill Company of Ahmedabad, and the opponent-plaintiff was employed in the Mill as a jobber or Muccadum. He brought this suit to recover wages from the 1st October to the 2nd November 1908. His case both in the plaint and in a notice threatening litigation, before the plaint, was that he had been unjustifiably dismissed from the defendant's service. In the course of his evidence in the suit, however, he was driven to admit that he was not dismissed but left the service without notice, and that is found to be the fact.2. Under the Rules of the Company it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to give the Company 15 days' notice before he left their service. That rule has admittedly been infringed by the plaintiff in this case.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has, however, given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 40 against the def...
The West End Watch Co. Vs. the Berna Watch Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR212
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sue to restrain the defendants from using and imitating various trade symbols alleged to belong to the plaintiffs and from representing that the defendants' business is the business carried on by the plaintiffs.2. At the commencement of the hearing eighteen issues were proposed, very few of which touched the real questions in the suit. The first ten of those issues were founded on various state ments in the narrative of facts contained in the plaint. This is in accordance with a practice which has. grown up at the Original Side of raising a number of issues which do not state the main questions in the suit but only various subsidiary matters of ' fact upon which there is not agreement between the parties. The effect is very embarrassing and the practice has often been condemned by trying judges. In my opinion issues should be confined to questions of law arising on the pleadings and such questions of fact as it would be necessary for the judge to...
Salekhan Valad Janglikhan Deshmukh Vs. Vishvanath Mahadeo Tilak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR22
Batchelor, J.1. The facts of this case are explained in our interlocutory Judgment of the 14th of October last, in which we granted the respondent one month's time to produce, if he was able to do so, an assignment in writing. from his brother Damodar. The assignment in writing has now been produced, and the objection taken on the ground of its absence now admittedly fails.2. It is, however, contended for the appellant that the application is barred by time. The application was made on the 27th July 1908, and prior to that there had been four applications of which the successive dates are : 22nd March 1901, 7th April 1902, 18th April 1905, and 3rd June 1908. The appellant's case is that the application referred to in 1908 was not a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 179 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as that application was presented not by the decree-holder, but by the decree-holder's brother who was not then an assignee in writing as required by s. 232 of the Cod...
Emperor Vs. Kalekhan Sardarkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1060
Batchelor, J.1. The respondent here was prosecuted under Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1901, for that he erected a new building without permission from the Municipality, and without waiting one month for the Municipality to pass orders in his case.2. There is no dispute about the facts which are these: The wall of the respondent's house had fallen down and under Section 96 of the Act he made an application to the Municipality for leave to reconstruct it. That application was dated the 19th of April. Under Sub-section 4 of Section 96, the Municipality have one month within which to make known their decision, and on the 13th of May they issued an order to the respondent prohibiting him from making the reconstruction which he desired. The reconstruction had however been made before the 13th of May. The Magistrate acquitted the accused solely on the authority of the ruling in Queen Empress v. Tippana (1888) U. Cr. C. 402 and the only question before us is whether t...
Musammat Bachi Vs. Bikhchand Jiomal and Kherajmal Dewanmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR56
Macnaghten, J.1. The Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act gives extraordinary relief in certain cases. The cases are specified in the Act. The list includes a suit for redemption. The only question is-Is this suit one in which special relief can be granted In their Lordships' opinion it is not. In form it is a suit for redemption. In reality it is nothing of the kind. It is a suit to recover property of which the rightful owner has been deprived by fraud. That settles the case.2. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed, and the appellants must pay the costs....
Roy Jatindra Nath Chowdhri Vs. Prasanna Kumar Bannerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1
Macnaghten, J.1. This litigation, which is the outcome of five different suits, has lasted for the period of fifteen years. It is not necessary to explain its origin or to trace its course which has certainly been leisurely and somewhat devious. Nothing now remains to be determined but a question of general importance:-2. Does the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, prohibit one or some of two or more joint landlords from suing to enhance the rent unless both or all of the 'fractional landlords,' as they are sometimes called, join in the suit as co-plaintiffs ?3. Section 188 declares that 'where two or more persons are joint landlords, anything which the landlord is under this Act required or authorised to do must be done ... by both or all those persons acting together. .'4. The question therefore divides itself into two branches : (1) Is the institution of a suit to enhance rent a thing which the landlord is under the Act authorised to do And (2) What is the meaning of the words 'acting togeth...
Somana Basappa Bagvankar Vs. Gadigeya Kornaya Hiremath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.941
1. The plaintiff here sued to redeem certain lands under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief. Act, alleging that a deed (Exhibit No. 16), which he had executed to the defendant, and which is on its face a deed of sale, was in reality only a deed of mortgage, the defendant having promised at the time of the execution of the deed that he would allow the lands concerned to be redeemed on payment of the money advanced. The defendant inter alia replied that Exhibit No. 16 was in fact what it is in appearance, a deed of sale.2. The learned Judge of the Court below framed upon this point the second issue, which is in these terms: 'is the sale-deed passed to defendant proved to be really a mortgage, redeemable on the terms stated in the plaint'? On that issue the Judge went into all the evidence tendered, and found the issue in the negative.3. It is now urged for the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, that the frame of this issue is incorrect; and that we sho...
Ayeshabai Vs. Ahmed Essa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR670
Robertson, J.1. In this case the applicant Ahmed bin Essa Khalifa has taken out a summons in suit No. 423 of 1907 against the firm of Messrs. Thakurdas & Co. calling upon them to show cause why they should not forthwith give a full free and complete inspection of certain papers and documents relevant to that suit in the respondents' possession and why the applicant should not be allowed to take full and complete copies of the said documents. He has taken out a similar summons against Messrs. Thakurdas & Co. in suit 517 of 1908.2. The applicant alleges that, after the death of his father Essa bin Khalifa, Messrs. Thakurdas & Co., who had been his father's solicitors, continued to act as the solicitors of himself and his two brothers in the litigation that was then pending between his father and one Fatmabibi, and they also acted as solicitors of himself and his brothers in certain other actions, which were filed after the death of his father.3. Sometime in November 1909 the applicant be...
In Re: Rassual Haji Cassum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR13
Beaman, J. 1. In this motion eight persons complain that the Official Assignee has seized and is retaining as the property of the Insolvent certain buffaloes which, at the time the Official Assignee seized them were in the possession of, and be. longed to, the said eight applicants.2. The motion was resisted by the Official Assignee, first, on the question of fact, he alleging that the property in dispute was at the time it was seized in the possession of and belonged to the Insolvent. Next, on the technical ground that the relief sought by the claimants cannot be obtained by a motion and that even were the Court to find on the question of fact against the Official Assignee the proper course would be to refer the aggrieved parties to a civil suit against him.3. There is nothing in the Insolvency Act which directly supports the applicants' contention that the right they seek to establish, and the relief they wish thereon consequently to obtain, are provided for by any section of that Ac...
In Re: Rassul Haji Cassum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.344
Beaman, J.1. In this motion eight persons complain that the Official Assignee has Seized and is retaining as the property of the insolvent certain buffaloes which, at the time the Official Assignee seized them, were in the possession of, and belonged to, the said eight applicants.2. The motion was resisted by the Official Assignee, first, on the question, of fact, he alleging that the property in dispute was at the time it was seized in the possession of, and belonged to the insolvent. Next, on the technical ground that the relief sought by the claimants cannot be obtained by a motion and that even were the Court to find on the question of fact against the Official. Assignee the proper course would be to refer the aggrieved parties to a Civil suit against him.3. There is nothing in the Insolvency Act which directly supports the applicants' contention that the right they seek to establish, and the relief they wish thereon consequently to obtain, are provided for by any section of that A...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›