Mumbai Court July 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.
Bando Subrao Jamnis Vs. Jambu Tavnappa Adake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR801
Chandavarkar J.1. The suit was brought by the respondent, as plaintiff, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum, to recover from the defendant a certain sum with interest on the strength of a promissory note, alleged to have been executed on the 29th of March 1904, at Chikodi. The defendant pleaded in answer to the claim that in the first place he was an agriculturist; that though he had executed the note in suit, yet the consideration stated in it was not true, but that the note had been passed nominally, merely with a view to induce the plaintiff to stand security to Government for the performance by the defendant of certain contracts which he had undertaken.2. The Subordinate Judge found that the defendant was an agriculturist and that the plaintiff's case as to the consideration was true. So a decree was passed in the plaintiff's favour. The defendant appeals.3. It is urged before us that the onus of proof lay on the plaintiff in spite of the admission by the d...
Jose Antonio Barreto Vs. Francisco Antonio Rodrigues
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR712
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The respondents as plaintiffs filed Suit No. 48 of 1908 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Thana, for a partition of the property in dispute. In their plaint the market value stated was such as to make the suit triable only by the First Class Subordinate Judge. That Judge made over the trial of the suit to the Joint Subordinate Judge at Thana. He had no jurisdiction to try it, if the market value stated in the plaint was correct. Neither party raised any objection on the ground of jurisdiction; no issue was raised relating to it. So the trial proceeded on the merits and the Joint Subordinate Judge, after taking evidence on the issues raised, passed a decree for partition in favour of the present respondents.2. The appellants on appeal to the District Court raised for the first time the question of jurisdiction on the strength of the market value stated in the plaint. That Court overruled the objection on the ground that Section 11 of the Su...
Ramdas Chabildas Vs. Chabildas Lalloobhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR621
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The learned Judge, from whose decree in favour of the 1st respondent, Chabildas Laloobhoy, this appeal is preferred, has held that the sum of Rs. 15,000, which the said respondent received from his undivided brothers under an agreement (Ex. R.) in the year 1866, was, on the analogy of a gift by a Hindu father to his son, a gift by the joint family consisting of the respondent and his brothers, in consideration of the services he had rendered to the family. Apart from the question whether any such analogy applies to a transaction such as this between brothers, and whatever its legal character and effect as between the parties to the agreement the sum received by the respondent from the joint family would retain its character as ancestral, as between him and his sons if the source whence it came was an ancestral fund of the family.2. The question whether Rs. 15,000 received by the respondent under the agreement came from such source will, however, arise only ...
Nanabhai Bajibhai Patel Vs. the Collector of Kaira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR707
Chandavarkar, J.1. The respondent is Inamdar of the village in which, the land in dispute is situate and brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover enhanced rent. The appellant contested the claim on several grounds, one of which, material for the purposes of this appeal and decisive of the case, was that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 217 of the Land Revenue Code and liable to pay only the Government rate of assessment levied on the land. The lower appellate Court has disallowed that defence on the ground that the appellant is not a registered occupant of the land. But Section 217 does not restrict its application to registered occupants only. It may be and indeed the lower Court finds that the appellant holds the land as a mere tenant under the Inamdar and that the latter has also acquired the right of occupancy. But Section 217 invests 'the holders of all lands' in alienated villages with the same rights and imposes upon them the same responsibilities in ...
Chunilal Ishwardas Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR769
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. In Appeal No. 38 of 1908, the learned District Judge's finding that the appellant was employed by Government as shroff to examine and pass only Babashai silver coins and not to accept Shikkai coins has not been made the subject of any convincing argument. But it is urged that the right of Government to complain that the appellant as their agent has acted contrary to the directions given to him and the purpose of his employment is lost by reason of their conduct in keeping the Shikkai coins, instead of returning them to the appellant, and in allowing without objection such coins to be remitted to the Mint. This defence, if it means anything, must amount either to a plea of estoppel, or acquiescence, or ratification, or novation, that is, anew contract of agency barring the right of Government to claim damages from the appellant off the specific contract of agency on which the action was funded. In the Court below, no such defence was set up in the pleadings,...
In Re: the Specific Relief Act; in Re: Sharafaly Mamooji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR737
Macleod, J.1. In January last the triennial election of eight Councillors for B. Ward Mandvi to the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay was held according to the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. There were fifteen candidates and the result of the poll was duly declared by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 28 (/) of the Act. Under Section 28 (q] the first eight candidates were deemed to be elected.2. A petition was then presented under Section 33 of the Act by one Husenbhai Abdulabhai Laljee to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court praying that the whole election or the election of the eight Councillors or of one or more of them might be set aside and a scrutiny held. The fifteen candidates and the Municipal Commissioner were made respondents. The Chief Judge held an inquiry and set aside the election of Lakhamsey Nappoo and Khimji Hirji Kayani who occupied the 3rd and 6th positions amongst the successful candidates.3. The Chief Judge then c...
Ganpatrao Balkrishna Bhide Vs. H.H. the Maharaja Madhavrao Sinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR780
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit to recover from the defendant Rs. 4178-7-2 in respect of moneys alleged to be due by him to the plaintiff on relinquishing his agency of the plaintiffs Deccan estates.2. The plaintiff is the Maharajah Scindia of Gwalior who has Inam and Patilki Vatans and other lands in the Bombay Presidency and entrusts supervision of them to an agent at Poona.3. On the 28th of January 1897 the defendant was appointed the plaintiff's agent and took over charge on the 2nd of February in that year. He was dismissed towards the end of 1901 and on the 9th of December in that year gave overcharge of his office to Parchure, the plaintiff's agent at the date of the filing of the suit. The most important item of claim relates to a cash balance of Rs -136-15-4 which according to the accounts furnished by the defendant to the new agent was in his hands on the 9th of December.4. The defendant pleads that when the plaintiff appointed him as agent he, the defendant, deposite...
Ramchandra Shivdar Vs. Gangabison Jaideo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR590
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit on an adjustment of January 1905 showing a balance in plaintiff's favour of Rs. 3080.2. The defence is two-fold : (1) that the adjustment represents the sum of purely gambling transactions and therefore the balance cannot be recovered at law; (2) if the Court does not find that this is so, then the defendant claims to have paid off the balance found due on the adjustment in full.3. The first question I have to answer is whether the transactions which resulted in the balance of 1905 were wagering transactions. The burden of proving this lay upon the defendant. There is nothing beyond the deposition of Raghunath and the entries in the books bearing directly upon the point. It is apparent from the books of both the parties that the whole course of dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant were Teji Mandi or Nuzzerana. If the description given by Raghunath of Teji Mandi transaction is even approximately accurate, then such transactions must be essentially...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›