Mumbai Court November 1911 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. Hari Govind Limaye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR40; 13Ind.Cas.827
Russell, J.1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 3 of Printing-presses and Books Act XXV of 1867, inasmuch as he being the keeper of a press called ' Mumbai Vaibhav Steam Press' printed a portion of the pamphlet in question called 'Kavyaratnavali' in Bombay and did not com- ply with Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 says :-' Every book or paper printed within British India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing, and (if the book or paper be published) (the name) of the publisher and the place of publication. ' And it appears that the accused is the man who made the declaration in the form laid down under Section 4, viz.:-' I, A. B., declare that I have a press for printing at...'2. We have had a very elaborate argument addressed to us upon this point by Mr. Gharpure. But it seems to us that when regard is had to the definition of the word ' book ' in Section 1 of the Act, the whole of the argument falls to the ground. A '...
Hari Venkatesh Pai Vs. Hari Venkappa Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR356
1. In our opinion we must answer the question referred to us by saying that the suit will lie. We have no doubt whatever that the legal maxim, namely, where there is a right there is a remedy, applies. The judgment-creditor had a legal right to get the decree executed through the means of the Court. The defendant obstructed him in the exercise of that right and the carrying out of that decree. Therefore, he must be held liable upon the principle which we have mentioned. We would refer to the case of McCartney v. Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway [1904] A. C. 301, where citing the note to Mellor v. Stateman 1 WS. 612 it is said: ' Wherever any act injures another's right, and would be evidence in future in favour of the wrongdoer, an action may be maintained for an invasion of the right without proof of any specific injury.' This principle has been repeatedly recognised and acted upon. It is clearly applicable to the present case. With this answer the papers must be returned to the r...
Abdul Kayam Amadajibhai Vs. Bahadur Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR26; 13Ind.Cas.858
Russell, J.1. This case raises a novel point. The present suit was brought on two money bonds for Rs. 200 each said to have been passed by the defendants to the plaintiff on the 7th April 1905. Later, however, a mortgage-bond dated the 3rd July 1905 was executed for Rs. 2,500 by which it appears arrangements were made to extinguish the bonds now sued on and for other considerations mentioned. It appears, however, that the plaintiff did not register the mortgage-deed, and the question put shortly which has been raised is : Can the plaintiff rely upon these two antecedent promissory notes having regard to this subsequent deed of mortgage 2. Both the lower Courts have held that he cannot. But it appears to us that they have overlooked what is the real point in the case.3. Mr. Rele for the respondents first of all relied upon the doctrine of novation. ' Novation' is defined in Section 62 of the Contract Act, which of course binds us, as follows:-'If the parties to a contract agree to subst...
Lakhichand Ramchand Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR165
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sue to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 10488-8-0 with interest at 9 per cent, from the 17th April 1909 as the price of 90 bales of cotton consigned at Malkapur on the 3rd of March 1909 by the second defendants for delivery by the defendants to the 1st plaintiff in Bombay.2. The cotton was not delivered and on the 17th of April 1909 the plaintiffs were informed by the defendants that it had been burnt at Varangaum Station. Thirty-seven damaged bales ^ere subsequently sold and realised Rs. 3210 which sum has been paid to the plaintiffs.3. The undisputed facts are that the 90 bales were placed by the defendants in waggon No. 15646 at Malkapui together with 19 bales of cotton belonging to another consignor between 5 and 7 p. m. on the 3rd of March. The doors of the waggon were then closed and sealed and the waggon was shunted to the dead end of a siding till next day On the 4th March the waggon was attached to a train which left Malkapur a...
Abdul Rajak Vs. Bai Jimbabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR295
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was originally filed by Haji Sa', to Sidick and his son Mahomed to avoid a deed poll, dated the 12th of February 1904, executed by them and duly registered. The deed poll purports to be published by the executing parties and recites that Haji Saboo Sidick therein called the founder is absolutely entitled to the premises described in the 1st and 2nd Schedule, although those described in the 1st Schedule had been conveyed by various conveyances to the plaintiff Mahomed as nominee of Haji Saboo Sidick, the consideration moneys mentioned in the conveyances to have been paid by the plaintiff Mahomed having been paid out of the moneys of Haji Saboo. It then recites that the founder was desirous of settling all the premises in Wakf and it is declared that the founder and the trustees for the time being shall stand seized of all the premises upon the trusts thereinafter mentioned, the founder during his lifetime being the sole trustee and Mutawali to be succe...
Malkajeppa Madivalappa Bulla Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR332
Russell, J.1. The plaintiff herein sued to be declared owner of a piece of ground in Mouje Gadag measuring eight feet long from North to South and thirty-three feet broad from East to West, immediately to the south of the present building of the plaintiff and also for an injunction to restrain the defendant, the Secretary of State, from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the ground or extending his building thereover. AL though the plaint does not, in so many words, pray to set aside the Deputy Collector's order hereinafter set out still para. 2 which says inter alia that ' this order is erroneous and illegal Government had no title whatever to the plot ' obviously involves such a consequence. It appears that the plaintiff purchased first a plot of land from the Basel Mission which is marked on the plan (Exhibit 18) measuring as stated in the deed (Exhibit 10) fifty-six feet East and West to the North, twenty-nine feet East and West to the South, and fifty-seven feet on the ...
Mir Sarwarjan Vs. FakhruddIn Mahomed Chowdhuri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR5
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Calcutta affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Backerganj.2. All the questions raised in the litigation but one were disposed of before the appeal was taken to the High Court, and when the case was before a Division Bench of that Court, that question was made the subject of a reference to the Full Bench.3. The reference was in the following terms:-Can specific performance of a contract validly entered into on behalf of a minor be enforced?4. The reference came before the Chief Justice and four other Judges of the High Court. They agreed in returning an answer which seems to be carefully guarded and is perhaps rather enigmatical. The Chief Justice observed that the question submitted to the Court was ' a wide and far reaching question.' His opinion was that they could only ' answer the question by saying that if a contract is validly entered into on behalf of a minor, and there is mutuality in such contract i...
Tukaram Yedu Savant Vs. Narayan Ramchandra Bhagwat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR89
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. When this case was first argued it was thought that there might be some difficult)' in reconciling the dicta of Mr. Justice Telang in Gojabai v. Shrimant Shahajirao Maloji Raje Bhosle ILR (1892) 17 Bom. 114 with the judgment of Sir Narayan Chandavarkar and Mr. Justice Heaton in Janglubai v. Jetha Appaji ILR (1908) 32 Bom. 409; and for that reason there; was a re-argument before those Judges together with the Bench before which the case originally came. The judgment which is about to be delivered by my learned colleague will show that there is no conflict between Mr. Justice Telang's judgment and the judgment in Janglubai v. Jetha Appaji ILR (1908) 32 Bom. 409.Chandavarkar, J.2. The question is, whether in the case of a deceased Hindu maiden, leaving, surviving her, her father's sister and her father's male gotraja sapindas 5 or 6 degrees removed as competing heirs, her stridhan goes to the father's sister or his male sapindas 13. The question of inheritance to ...
Jamna Das Vs. Pandit Ram Autar Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1
Macnaghten, J.1. This is a perfectly plain case. The action is brought by a mortgagee to enforce against a purchaser of the mortgaged property an undertaking that he entered into with his vendor. The mortgagee has no right to avail himself of that. He was no party to the sale. The purchaser entered into no contract with him, and the purchaser is not personally bound to pay this mortgage debt. Therefore, he is not a person from whom, in the words of the 90th section of the Transfer of Property Act, u the balance is legally recoverable.2. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Jit Singh Vs. Maharaj Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR30
Macnaghten, J.1. It is not usual to allow a point to be raised here on appeal which has not been discussed in the Court below, and upon which their Lordships have not got the assistance of the Court below.2. Oh this ground their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›