Mumbai Court January 1911 Judgments
Bai Bhikaiji M. R. Mody Vs. Bai Dinbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR319
Beaman, J.1. I think it is very clear that this defence must fail for two different reasons, first because upon the schedule put in by the defendant-executrix herself, if we deduct a fair proportion from the Municipal charges corresponding with the relative values of the properties in Mahim and Pitha Street, and if further we deduct the monies expended by the executrix on funeral and other ceremonies in excess of the sum allotted by the testator for that purpose, her necessary expenditure will not exceed the assets which came into her hands or at any rate not exceed those assets to any extent making it worth while for a Court to inquire further , upon that head; so that no question of abatement really need arise. Secondly, because in my opinion the defendant is strong in contending that the bequest of Pitha Street house upon trust, the trustees to give her the rents and profits thereof for her life and thereafter be conveyed to the Parsi Panchayet for charitable purposes, is a specific...
Tag this Judgment!In Re Jehangir D. Davar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.945
Russell, J.1. I do not think it desirable to reserve our judgment in this case, In my opinion in dealing with cases of this kind--and this is not likely to be the last of such cases in Bombay--it is extremely desirable to have regard to Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Bombay Act II of 1904). That section says:Whoever drives a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road, may on conviction be punished with fine, and so on.2. Therefore you have to consider at least eight different points in dealing with a case of this nature. Above all, in this particular case you have to pay regard to all the circumstances of the case.3. It has been truly pointed out by Mr. Desai that we are not sitting in appeal but in revi...
Tag this Judgment!Fatmabai Vs. Sonbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR573
Beaman, J.1. At the end of last term Mr. Lowndes appeared for defendant No. 3 and asked for a rule calling upon all the other parties to the consent decree to show cause why that decree should not be set aside on grounds of forgery and fraud2. alleged particularly against the second defendant. I then intimated to Mr. Lowndes that I did not think any rule of that kind even if granted could be productive of any useful result or even could be made absolute, as in my opinion he had chosen the wrong procedure. Mr. Lowndes, while admitting that he entertained some doubt upon the point, pressed for the rule in order that it might be argued when due return had been made to it.3. It has come before me to-day and has been well argued on both sides, Mr. Setalvad representing Mr. Lowndes; but I remain of the same opinion. Nothing that has been said in the course of the argument for defendant No. 3 has in the slightest degree shaken the opinion, which I was disposed to hold from the first, that a c...
Tag this Judgment!Madhowprasad Ramgopal Vs. Ajudyaprasad Narandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR161
Davar, J. 1. This suit No. 318 of 1900 is placed on my Board to-day and is sixth on the list. Mr. Raikes for the plaintiffs and Mr. Inverarity for the defendants move by consent of parties for an adjournment of the hearing. This I decline to grant. I have often heard it said that it is the business of the parties to decide when their suit shall be heard and that when parties agree to have it postponed all that the Judge has to do is to take up his pen and write the order. This is an absolutely false notion and ought to have no place in the minds of any one who has a correct notion of the duties of a Judge. The plaintiff after he files his suit ought to be ready to go on with it within a period of time reasonably necessary for the preparation of his case, and the defendant is bound to be expeditious in the preparation of his defence, and be ready within the time reasonably necessary to defend the suit. No doubt the Court is bound to and will at all times consider the convenience of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Fardoonji Ardeshir Cursetji Fardoon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR332
Davar, J.1. In this case I find that I have set out the facts and the previous history of it in sufficient detail in the judgment which I delivered on the 27th of September 1910 on an interlocutory application to set aside the preliminary consent decree of the 16th of July 1910 by a notice of motion. It is, therefore, unnecessary to recapitulate the same here.2. Three days after my judgment, a memorandum of review was presented to me and I excused delay and granted a rule which was argued before me on the 10th of October. On the Advocate General not objecting by his counsel to the order of the Court excusing delay and admitting the review, I made the rule absolute, set aside the consent decretal order of the 16th of July, and ordered the suit to be heard de novo on its merits. In my previous judgment I have given the reasons why I was prepared to set aside the consent decree on an application in proper form being made to me.3. The two main questions argued before me are, whether the be...
Tag this Judgment!Balambhat Ravjibhat Joshi Vs. Vinayak Ganpatrao Patvardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR154
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. In this case we think that the Subordinate Judge with appellate powers was in error in thinking that the case of Krishndbai v. Hari ILR (1906) 31 Bom. 15 : 8 Bom. L.R. 813 is not in point. The ratio decidendi in that case is that Courts of equity will not forego their power to grant relief against forfeiture in the case of non-payment of rent where the relations of the parties are those of landlord and tenant, merely on the ground that the agreement between them is embodied in a decree of the Court.2. We think that that ruling applies alike to a suit to enforce a decree and to proceeding in execution.3. Upon the materials before us we think it is a case in which the Court in the exercise of its discretion should have refused to award forfeiture in favour of the plaintiff having regard to the fact that he had already accepted payment of sums more than sufficient to discharge the obligations of the defendants under the decree.4. We set aside the decree of the lo...
Tag this Judgment!The Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Haji Ismail Hasham
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1911
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR158; 61Ind.Cas.143
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the Advocate-General on the assumption that the defendant was building his house on Church Gate Street in a manner which was illegal, having regard to the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, Sections 349A and 349B. It is conceded that before so building he had obtained, on the 1st of May 1909, the written permission of the Commissioner to build as he did to a height of upwards of 70 feet upon Church Gate Street, which is a street at the point with which we are concerned in this suit of 47.9 inches in width. The view taken by the learned Judge was that in so building with the consent of the Commissioner, given in writing, he was doing nothing illegal, and in that view we concur, for we read the words ' except with the written permission of the Commissioner' in Section 349A as a general exception to the building regulations contained in Sections 349A and 349B and as implying that the Commissioner can in such cases as he thinks p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›