Mumbai Court December 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.
Shrigopal Chiranjilal Vs. Dhanalal Ghasiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.944
Beaman, J.1. An interesting and, as far as India is concerned, I believe, an entirely new point has been raised in this case. The defendant contends that the inclusion by him of the debt sued for in his schedule, while seeking the benefit of the Insolvency Act, is not an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, and does not extend the period within which the plaintiff can bring this suit.2. Mr. Jaffer has cited four English cases Everett v. Robertson (1885) 28 L.J.Q.B. 23 : 1 El. & El. 16 : 4 (N.S.) 1083 : 7 W.R. 9 : Ex parte Topping (1865) 34 L.J. B. 44 : 4 .J. & S. 551 : 12 L.T. 787 : 13 W.R. 1025; Davis v. Edwards (1851) 7 Ex. Ch. 22 : 21 L.J. Ex. 4 : 15 Jur. 1014; Courtnay v. Williams (1844) 13 L.J. Ch. 461 : 3 Hare 539 which appear to be exactly in point. The English Courts seem to have felt no hesitation in deciding that the mere inclusion of a debt in a Bankrupt's schedule was not such an acknowledgment as the law required and would not opera...
The Hope Mills Limited Vs. Sir Cowasji J. Readymoney
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR162
Beaman, J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs, the Hope Mills Company, to redeem three mortgages of the year 1900 should it be found that the second and third of these have been bona fide purchased by the first mortgagee for himself, and incidentally to have the two agreements of the years 1901 and 1905, respectively, should defendant No. 1 rely upon them, declared invalid and not binding on the plaintiff Company.2. On the 5th of April 1900, the plaintiff Company mortgaged the Hope Mills to the defendant No. 1 for five lakhs rupees. The second and third mortgages were effected by one and the same instrument on the 31st of May 1900, and these two . mortgages have been referred to throughout the case as Tokersey's and Ichharam's mortgages.3. On failure to pay the first installment of interest, the defendant No. 1 entered into possession on the 14th December 1900. In March, 1901 the defendant No. 1 put the mortgaged property up for sale, but as the reserved price was not reached, it was ...
Gambhirsingji Bhagvatsangji Vs. Agarsing Bhausing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.943
1. This petition is filed by certain plaintiffs who had instituted a suit for partition, under the Gujarat Talukdars Act (Bombay Act VI of 1888) before Mr. Mehta, who appears to have been the Acting Talukdan Settlement Officer. In 1890 the plaintiffs and some ancestors of theirs had applied to (he Talukdari Settlement Officer for division but he referred them to the Civil Court Accordingly, they filed a Suit No. 112 of 1894, which was decided by the Assistant Judge in their favour, the Court granting the declaration asked for, that the plaintiffs in that suit were entitled to 19 dokdas and three-fourth badams in the Talukdari estate It is admitted that to that suit Mr. Shah's clients or at least some of them were not parties. Now this application has been rejected by the Acting or Assistant Talukdari Settlement Officer, Mr. Mehta, by reason of the contention of those of the defendants who were not parties to the suit of 1894, and the words used by Mr. Mehta are these as these defendant...
Sardar Ganpat Rao Moharkar Vs. Sardar Anand Rao, Baji Sahib
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR267
Collins, J.1. The question in this case is as to the respective rights of certain members of the family of one Jagdeo Rao, who was Commander-in-Chief of the Maharaja Scindia, of Gwalior, at the time of the Indian Mutiny, in respect of certain villages and lands, situate part in Bombay and part in the N.-W. Provinces, an interest in which was conferred upon him by the British Government in perpetuity as a reward for his services subject to the conditions of loyalty and the payment of an annual sum. The appellant, Sardar Ganpat Rao, is the eldest son of Sultanji Rao, deceased, who was the eldest son of Jagdeo Rao. The respondent, Anand Rao, is the third surviving son of Jagdeo Rao. His second son, Tantya, was adopted into i another family before the death of Jagdeo Rao. This litigation began through a claim put forward by Anand Rao for a partition of all the family property. Ultimately, the present suit, which was brought by Anand Rao, as plaintiff, against his nephew, Sardar Ganpat Rao,...
Jafarkhan Jatbarkhan Pathan Vs. Daudshah Mahomedshah Fakir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR49
Batchelor, J.1. This was a suit filed under Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, corresponding to Section 92 of the present Code. The plaintiffs sued as persons interested in the alleged public religious trust known as Pir Khatib Sayad's Dargah in the town of Nadiad. They alleged that that Dargah was wakf property over which the first three defendants had no right of ownership; that the first defendant had mismanaged the trust property and had alienated part of it to one Chaturbhai who in turn had sold it to the fourth defendant. The plaintiffs prayed, therefore, that the first three defendants should be removed from management of the property; that new trustees should be appointed; that accounts should be taken and a scheme should be framed.2. The principal defence offered was made by the first defendant who claimed that the property was not trust property at all but was private property belonging to himself. The learned Joint Judge by whom the suit was decided held that t...
J.S.B. Birch Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR9
Chancellor, J.1. Their Lordships are unable to advise His Majesty that leave to appeal should be given in this case.2. The rule as regards Criminal Proceedings is very well known, and was laid down in Dillet's case (1). It was there said: 'Her Majesty will not review Criminal Proceedings unless it be shown that by a disregard of the forms of legal process, or by some violation of the principles of natural justice, or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done.'3. The applicants ought to show the materials upon which one of those propositions can be established, and ought fully to inform the Board of the facts.4. In the present case the applicants have not shown the materials, have not fully informed the Board of the facts, nor have they even given a summary view of the course of the trial, and of the evidence....
In Re: Anupram Kirparam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR27
Batchelor, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an order made by the District Magistrate of Surat who, by the order under notice, reversed the Sub-divisional Magistrate's order discharging the accused. The District Magistrate was of opinion that the discharge should be set aside and further enquiry should be undertaken. 2. The ground upon which a Rule was issued by us was the petitioner's allegation that though the opponent's counsel had been fully heard against him, his own counsel had been stopped by the District Magistrate in the course of the enquiry, and, that notwithstanding, the District Magistrate thereafter without any further notice to the petitioner or his legal adviser held against him and directed further enquiry. Upon this point there is some slight divergence between the District Magistrate's report and the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner as to what the real state of the facts is; but it seems to us that both sides give so nearly the same version that our ow...
Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR82
Ameer Ali, J. 1. The plaintiff is the owner of considerable landed property in Bengal, part of which he has leased to various parties for the working of coal mines. Besides the rent for the surface land he receives, under the designation of royalty, a percentage on the coal raised by the lessees or mine-owners. He has been assessed for 'cess' under the provisions of Bengal Act IX of 1880, in respect of the royalty received or receivable by him from coal-mines on his estate. This Act provides for the levy of 'cess' on all immovable property situate in the Province for the construction of roads and other means of communication, and it gives to the 'Collector' defined in the Act, the power of making the assessment. For the purposes of the Act, mines, &c.; are included in the definition of immovable property, and it is declared that, in the case of lands, the 'cess' should be assessed on their 'annual value,' and in the case of mines, &c.; on 'the annual net profits' from such property. Th...
Jehangir Dadabhai Vs. Kaikhusru Kavasha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.951
1. One Dadabhoy Byramji, a Parsi inhabitant of Tarapur, died on 21st August 1866 after having made a Will in the Gujarati language on 8th August 1866. He left two sons Pallonji and Jehangirji (defendant No. 1). Pallonji, the elder son, was a person of weak intellect and unable to look after his affairs. Jehangirji entered upon the management of the whole estate immediately after his father's death. He obtained probate of his Will in 1867. His son Byramji (defendant No. 2) was about five years old at the time of the testator's death.2. Pallonji died in 1897 leaving a widow Kuverbai (defendant No. 3), his son-in-law, Kavasha, husband of a predeceased daughter (defendant No. 4), and his daughter's son Kaikhushru (plaintiff). Pallonji was twice married but had no son born to him. Pallonji was living with his brother Jehangirji up to his death.3. On 7th March 1906, the plaintiff, as the constituted attorney of Kuverbai, applied for letters of administration to Pallonji's estate. On 22nd Dec...
Bur Singh Vs. Uttam Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR59
Robson, J.1. The main question in this appeal is as to the validity of the will of one Shib Singh, who was a Hindu Jat, residing at Garhdiwala in the district of Hoshiarpur in the Punjab.2. There is a further point as to whether a portion of the land comprised in the will is ancestral property or not. That question is substantially one of fact. Both the Courts below are agreed in finding that the property in dispute was acquired, and no reason has been shown to their Lordships which would justify them in coming to a different conclusion.3. Shib Singh fell seriously ill in May 1898. The will in dispute was made by him on the 11th June 1898 and he died on the 23rd of the same month. It is alleged by the respondents in their plaint that the will was executed when he was seriously ill, weak--really at death's door--and not in possession of his right senses and intellectual powers, and was under the undue influence of Jawala Singh, father of the defendants, Harbans Singh and Bur Singh.'4. N...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »