Mumbai Court September 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.
Yamnabai Vs. Nanabhai Sadanand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1075
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff, a Hindu widow, to recover maintenance from her brothers-in-law the defendants 1 to 6, defendants 4 and 5 being minors and defendant 6 their guardian, and the purchaser of the ancestral house, defendant 7. It appears that after the death of her father-in-law, who maintained her to the year 1893 or thereabouts, the first defendant continued to maintain the plaintiff as he swears for about three years but as she says for a much shorter period. Since that time whether 1896 or before, she has been maintained by her sisters one of whom was the widow of the late Mr. Justice Telang; but she now complains that her surviving sister Gungabai is too poor to continue supporting her, and she, therefore, makes this claim for maintenance against her brothers-in-law and their alienee.2. Most of the argument has turned upon Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section, I think, is very unhappily worded as becomes evident upon a consideration of s...
Ranchhodlal Vandravandas Patvari Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR92
Batchelor, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decree made by the District Judge of Ahmedabad in favour of the plaintiff the Secretary of State for India in Council.2. The suit was filed to recover possession of a small strip of land about 68 feet long and about 2 feet broad with a Naveli or passage which ran between the defendants' properties on the north and the Dharamshala, of which one Bapuji Jagannath was the trustee in possession, to the south. Although the nominal plaintiff is thus the Secretary of State for India in Council, the real plaintiff who is substantially interested in the fate of the suit is Bapuji the trustee in possession of the Dharamshala.3. The plaintiff claimed to recover possession of this strip of land after removing from it certain encroachments made on it by the defendants' buildings.4. Great difficulty was experienced in the Court below in ascertaining the real ground upon which the defendants sought to meet the plaintiff's case. They began by setting up thei...
Namubai Vs. Daji Govind Warang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1071
Robertson, J.1. This is a summons taken out by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why she should not deposit security for the defendant's costs under Order XXV, Rule 1.2. The discretion given by that rule is one of the most difficult that a Court can be called upon to exercise. On the one hand it is clear that to refuse to make the order would in a number of cases open the door to very great injustice being done to the defendant, who would be put in the position of having either to have to defend the suit at his own costs or paying something to the plaintiff to settle the suit. On the other hand it is perfectly clear that a rigid application of the power to order security to all cases, except the very narrow class, which was suggested by the defendant's counsel in this case, might very often result in nothing less than an entire denial of justice to the plaintiff merely on the ground that he or she had not sufficient money to prosecute the suit.3. In this case pract...
Manji Karimbhai Vs. Hoorbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1044
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged that she was one of the beneficiaries under a trust deed whereby her mother Fatmabai widow of Haji Tar Mahomed Sajan settled upon her son and daughter inter alia a house in Kumbekar Street.2. That in suit No. 64 of 1899, to which the plaintiff and the heir of her sister Jumbabai were parties, it was by a consent decree declared that the plaintiff and Jumbabai or her children were to take the trust premises in equal shares.3. That upon applications for execution made by some of the parties to the suit a warrant for sale of the right, title and interest of Fatmabai in the house was issued on the 15th of July 1901 and that at the suggestion of the defendant 1 who was her confidential adviser the plaintiff supplied him with funds wherewith he purchased the house at a Court-sale held under the said warrant on the 18th of October 1901 for Rs. 9300. That she advanced divers sums of money to the first defendant for payment of workmen and the purch...
Meghji Vallabhdas Vs. Jadhowji Morarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1062
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit to recover damages for non delivery of 7000 cwts. of linseed, the due date being the 10th May 1910. Out of the total 7000 cwts. 2000 cwts. were settled by resale somewhere in March at Rs. 10-4-0; but as the defendant has not paid the amount due upon that cross-sale it is included in the plaintiff's claim in this suit.2. The defence is that these contracts were wagering and the defendant has principally relied upon the case of Kong Yee Lone and Company v. Lowjee Nanjee (1901) 28 I.A. 239 : 3 Bom. L.R. 476 decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council, as exhibiting facts very similar to the facts in this case, which their Lordships there decided gave rise to a necessary inference that the transactions were by way of wagering; secondly, upon a dictum of Muttusami Ayyar J. in the case of Exhoor Doss v. Venkatasubbd Rau ILR (1894) Mad. 480 to the effect that if one party to a contract intends only to gamble, while the other party intends and believes that he i...
In Re: Tricumdas Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR482
Robertson, J.1. The claimant urges that the claim was not barred by limitation as there was a payment of interest under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. The real difficulty is caused by the affidavit that Nagindas Bhikaridas sworn on the 13th April 1910 in support of his claim. That affidavit sets out in paras 6, 7 and 8 that it was at his express request and consent that the Company credited the amount in each of the years since the death of Bai Jadav.2. That affidavit is on the very face of it the very reverse of convincing and accordingly the claimant Nagindas was examined and cross-examined with a view to ascertaining the real facts. When he came to be re-examined his case appeared to be that on the death of Bai Jadav he had applied to the Company to transfer the loan into the names of the trustees.3. This the Company agreed to do on the trustees duly executing a bond and providing a surety. A bond was executed by the executors but the surety was not provided. It appears that the ...
Bhaishanker Ambashanker Oza Vs. Mulji Asharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR480
Robertson J.1. This is a summons whereby the next friend of the plaintiff is called upon to show cause why he should not be made to deposit in Court such sum as the Honorable Judge may deem sufficient as security for the first defendant's costs of this suit.2. It appears that the next friend and the plaintiff are both residents outside the jurisdiction of the Court and do not own immoveable property in British India, and under those circumstances, it is urged, the next friend ought to be directed to give security for costs.3. The decision in Bombay, which has the most bearing upon this point, is the case of Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji ILR (1898) 23 Bom. 100. It appears from that case that it was laid down that except in exceptional cases neither an infant female plaintiff nor her next friend ought to be required to give security for costs. In his judgment, Sir Charles Farran says:If, then, the next friend of an infant plaintiff and not the infant plaintiff himself or herself is and has...
Emperor Vs. Fulji Ditya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR901
Batchelor, J.1. In this case one Fulji walad Ditya has been convicted of house-breaking under Section 454 and of having suffered certain previous convictions which bring his case within Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence upon him was that he suffer thirty stripes under the Whipping Act IV of 1909 and to that sentence there was added an order under Section 565 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing that the convict should notify his residence or change of residence for a period of five years.2. We called for the papers in the case in order to satisfy ourselves whether this order under Section 565 could be supported and we have heard the learned Government Pleader in its favour. We are of opinion that the order cannot stand. So far as the plain words of Section 565 go it seems to us clear that the order cannot be brought within them. For the section in terms allows of such an order being made only at the time of passing sentences of transportation or imprisonment on the ...
Emperor Vs. Harisingh Ganpatsingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR899
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision, the applicant having been convicted of abetting the offence of bringing a false charge of an offence, Sections 211 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. We think that there is no evidence to sustain the conviction. It appears that one Chandrabhagabai went by night from one village to another and at the latter village instituted a false complaint that she had been robbed on the way between the villages. It appears also that the present applicant accompanied her on her journey. But that, it seems to us, is all that the learned Sessions Judge has accepted as proved against the applicant, and that, in our opinion, is not enough. There was evidence offered that the applicant had assisted Chandrabhagabai by scattering certain possessions of hers about the road and thereby creating evidence in favour of the false charge. But as we read the lower Court's judgment the evidence of the witnesses who tell this story about the scattering of the pots...
Zarabibi Vs. Abdul Rezzak Nakshbandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR891
Beaman, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, corresponding in effect with a writ of Habeas Corpus, brought by Zarabibi, the mother of the two minor children, against their father Abdul Razzak.2. The rule was issued on a petition under Section 491. The words of that section are ' any of the High Courts of Judicature...may, whenever it thinks fit, direct that a person, illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody, be set at liberty or that any person within the limits &c.; be brought before the Court to be dealt with according to law.' There the guiding words of that section apparently come to an end but it is supplemented, I think, perhaps not altogether felicitously, by Rule 794 of the High Court Rules, which, being made under the Civil Procedure Code, have likewise the force of law. And while it appears by Section 491 to be left entirely to the discretion of the Court, whether it should or should not direct the person to be bro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »