Mumbai Court August 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.
Emperor Vs. Mulshankar Harinand Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR750
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The three petitioners are being prosecuted on the complaint of a creditor of the first petitioner in the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, the charge against the first petitioner being an offence under Section 421 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge against the other two being abetment thereof. The first petitioner was adjudged insolvent under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) ten days prior to the institution of the complaint. It was urged for them before the learned Magistrate by way of preliminary objection to the complaint that his jurisdiction to try them for an offence under Section 421 of the Indian Penal Code was excluded by the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and that the only Court which was competent to entertain a complaint of the offence was this Court exercising insolvency jurisdiction under the Act. The preliminary objection having been overruled by the Magistrate, the petitioners ask this...
R.D. Sethna Vs. the National Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR870
Davar, J.1. One Ambararn Motichand died on the 12th October 1900. Previous to his death, on the 3rd of October 1900, he made his will whereby he appointed his father Motichand Howji, the second defendant herein, Chunilal Pitamber his wife Samoo and his mother'sl sister Kashi, the executors and executrices thereunder. Probate of that will was granted to Motichand Howji and Chunilal Pitamher on the 13th of March 1902, the right of the two ladies to apply for probate being reserved. Ambaram left considerable property and amongst such property were twenty shares of the Textile Manufacturing Company.2. By the 10th clause of his will, he directed that the residue of his property should be used for dharmada directing his trustees to use the same in such a way that his name should be perpetuated for ever. 3. In this case the Court is not concerned with the administration of Ambaram's estate or with the manner in which Ambaram's estate was administered till after the death of Motichand Howji wh...
Narayan Ramchandra Bhatta Vs. Manager Nagappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR831
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The landlord called the mulgar, who is the appellant, seeks to make the tenant, who is the mulgeni-dar-respondent, liable to pay the enhanced assessment; but the terms of the kabulayat do not support that claim. The khata was no doubt transferred to the name of the mulgenidar at the time of the mulgeni or perpetual lease; but the transfer had only the effect of making the khatedar liable to pay the assessment to Government-he became the person to whom Government was to look for payment. But the question still remains whether as between the mulgar and the mulgenidar the liability existed in the latter as khatedar by reason of the transfer of the Mate to his name. That the original liability of the mulgar continued, notwithstanding the transfer, is obvious from the provision in the kabulayat that the responsibility for payment of the amount of the assessment (Rs. 6-14-6), then payable to Government annually, should rest on the mulgar. It is argued that becaus...
T.K. Gajjar Vs. Lallubhai Dharamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR860
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. On the 1st of August 1910 a summons was obtained from the Sitting Judge in chambers headed: ' In the matter of the Arbitration between Professor Tribhuwandas Kalliandas Gajjar and the firm of Messrs. Jivanchand Lallubhai & Co., and in the matter of the Indian Arbitration Act No. IX Of 1899-Professor Tribhuwandas Kalliandas Gajjar-Petitioner; and Lallubhai Dharamchand and the other partners in Jivanchand Lallubhai & Co.-Respondents,' calling on the above-named petitioner to appear and show cause, if any, he hath why the execution of the award, dated the 19th January 1910, should not be stayed until the final disposal of Suit No. 8501 of 1909.2. The award of the 19th January 1910 was an award made under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act IX of 1899, whereby the firm of Jivanchand Lallubhai & Co. were directed to pay to Tribhuwandas K. Gajjar the sum of Rs. 2,15,000, Rs. 1,00,000 being payable at once and Rs. 10,000 every sub sequent month. At the time o...
Jeevandas Dhanji Vs. Ranchoddas Chaturbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR844
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Macleod J., made in Chambers, dismissing an application by the and defendant to quash certain execution proceedings which had been taken against him in the Bombay High Court.2. The plaintiff had obtained a decree in the Amreli Court in the Baroda State on the 17th July 1893. He had presented certain applications for execution to the Amreli Court, of which the second was presented on the 10th July 1905, within twelve years of the passing of the decree. In that application he prayed as follows :-I pray for recovery of the amount of Rs. 7637-4-10 from the defendants in accordance with the claim as shown in the application for execution. The same is as follows :-(i) On account of some urgent cause and occasion the defendants are now going to come specially to Okhamandal. Therefore, at that time as to whatever moveable properties I may point out for taking under attachment in whatsoever villages and at whatsoever places in Okhamand...
Motilal Mithalal Vs. the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR471
Robertson, J. 1. This is an originating summons taken out for the purpose of obtaining the Court's opinion upon the construction of the will of one Jethalal Nathalal, who died on the 9th October 1907, leaving a will dated the 15th of July 1907. The summons is taken out by the executors according to the tenor of the will, and the principal point that arises is the determination of the question : What, if any, interest is taken by the second defendant Bai Dhankore under the will of the testator. Bai Dhankore is the widow of the testator.2. The will, which is in Gujarati, sets out that the testator had certain properties which he desired to dispose of and he commences his will by saying :3. I in my full consciousness make this my will agreeably to what is written below. The particulars thereof are as follows : -1. There are my three daughters by name Mani and Kasi and Somi born of the womb of my first married wife Jadav and no son whatever is alive. My said wife Jadav is dead.2. I have go...
irawa Laxmana Mugali Vs. Satyappa Shiddappa Mugali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR766
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. There was no doubt a decision on the merits in the previous suit, which is relied upon by the appellant as barring the present suit as res judicata; and the title of reversionary heir, which was claimed there as it is claimed here by the first respondent, was negatived by the finding of the Subordinate Judge, who tried that previous suit. But the Subordinate Judge also gave another reason for dismissing that suit of the respondent. The reason was that the plaint had been undervalued and that the plaintiff (the first respondent in this second appeal) had refused to pay the additional Court fee. If this last reason was sufficient by itself for the dismissal of the previous suit, the findings on the issues on the merits ' were not necessary for its decision and cannot have the force of res judicata: Ghela Iccharam v. Sankalchand Jetha ILR(1898) 18 Bom. 597.2. The question, then, is whether the ground of undervaluation was sufficient by itself for the dismissal...
Chhaganlal Kishoredas Vs. the Collector of Kaira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR825
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. There are no doubt dicta in some of the decisions of this Court, which detached from the context, would seem to lend support to the view that Section 424 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), reproduced as Section 80 of the new Code, applies only to actions in tort. But carefully examined, those decisions lay down that actions ex contract are excluded from the operation of the section. The true test of an action for the purposes of Section 424 is whether the - wrong complained of as having been done by the public officer sued amounts, first, to a distinct act on his part, and, secondly, whether that act purported to have been done by him in his official capacity: Bhau Balapa v. Nana ILR (1888) 13 Bom. 343. Both these elements must combine to render necessary the giving of notice under Section 424 as a condition precedent to suit.2. In the present case they both exist. What is complained of is that in the exercise of the power conferred upon ...
The Hope Mills Ltd. Vs. Vithaldas Pranjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR730
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. On the 3rd September 1909 the plaintiffs applied for execution of an ex parte decree obtained by them against the first defendant Company on the 15th of November 1904. On the 20th September 1909 a rule was granted calling on the plaintiffs to show cause why the decree should not be set aside on the ground that the summons in this suit had not been duly served on the 1st defendant.2. The learned Judge held that the service of summons on the defendant Company was regulated by Section 89 of the Companies Act 1882, and not by Section 436 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, and that the summons had not been duly served. Section 436 does not apply to companies registered, as is the first defendant Company, under the Companies Act, but to the more uncommon class of companies authorised to sue or to be sued in the name of an officer or trustee, for example, the Comptoir National D'escompte de Paris, which under the authority of Act VII of 1890 may be sued in the name of...
Trimback Ramkrishna Ranade Vs. Hari Laxman Ranade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR686
N.G. Ckandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The darkhast, in respect of which this appeal is preferred, was presented for the execution of a decree for partition dated the 4th of July 1893. By that decree the appellant was awarded annually a 1/13th share of the income of the property belonging to him and his co-parceners, and it was also declared that they should pay in equal shares the debts due from them as members of a joint Hindu family to outsiders.2. By the present darkhast the appellant asked in execution of the decree, for his share of the income due for thirteen years immediately preceding the darkhast. He also asked the Court to determine his share of the debts and to deduct it from his share of the income awardable under the darkhast.3. The application for execution was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the appellant had in November 1899, by a deed, relinquished his annual share of the income, awarded to him by the decree, in consideration of receiving from the respondent Vishn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »