Mumbai Court February 1911 Judgments
Temulji Jamsetji Joshi Vs. the Bombay Electric Supply and Tramway Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR345
Davar, J. 1. The plaintiff in this case is employed in the workshops of the B. B. & C. I. Railway Company, and works there as a fitter, earning a rupee and twelve annas a day.2. On the 16th of November 1908, he was residing at Bandora, but having heard that there was illness in the family of his sister, who was residing at Foras Road, after finishing his work on that day, he went to his sister's house. He found her child ill and he was sent to call in Dr. Fernandez who resides at Girgaum Back Road. After having called at the Doctor's bunglow, he started to go back to his sister's house. He attempted to board one of the defendant company's long bogey carriages and was trying to get in by the middle entrance, when he fell, his right foot got under one of the wheels and the wheel ran over and caused injuries to his toes. He has filed this suit claiming Rs. 5,000 from the defendant company, charging that the accident and the consequent injuries were due to their negligence.3. The defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Govindrao Narhar Pingle Vs. Ambalal Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR352
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. So far as the appeal is concerned, it must fail. We disposed of the points argued in the course of the hearing.2. The cross-objections of the respondent must be allowed for the following reasons.3. The appellant, who is found by the lower Court to be an agriculturist within the meaning of that term as defined in the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, had an award made against him and in favour of the respondent by arbitrators on reference without the intervention of the Court on a mortgage, with directions as to payment of the mortgage money and sale in case of failure to pay. The award was filed in Court by the respondent and a decree made in its terms. The respondent having applied for execution of the decree, the appellant prayed for relief under Section 15B of the Act. The lower Court granted the prayer.4. It is now contended before us by the respondent in support of his cross-objections to the decree that the Court had no power to act under Section 15 B, b...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mahomed Jan Vs. Munshi Bishun Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR413
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court, Calcutta, overruling that of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra. The object of the suit, as brought by the plaintiff and now appellant, was to set aside a revenue sale, and to recover possession of the property sold. The defendants were the purchaser and others who derived title from him. In the first Court the decision was in favour of the plaintiff upon grounds which it is unnecessary now to examine.2. From that decision there was an appeal to the High Court, and that Court overruled the decision of the first Court. Various grounds were urged on the one side and on the other, on the argument of that appeal, all of which were dealt with by the learned Judges in their judgment, but of all those grounds, there is only one which it appears to their Lordships necessary now to consider.3. The facts, so far as it is necessary to examine them at the present stage, can be shortly stated. The property in question is an Ijmal...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Kashiram Shimpi Vs. Abaji Chimnaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR508
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question is whether Section 13(c)of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act must be regarded as repealed in consequence of the repeal of Section 257A of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) by the new Code (Act V of 1908). That section of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act incorporates by reference Section 257A of the old Code; and it is argued by Mr. Patvardhan for the appellant that its repeal has the effect of repealing Sections 13, Clause (c), of the Act also. But in the words of Brett L.J. in Clarke v. Bradlaugh (6) 'Where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeal of the first by a third does not affect the second.' See also Maxwell on Statutes, 3rd Edition, p. 590. 2. For these reasons the decree must be confirmed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahim Haji Yakub Vs. Chunilal Lalchand Kabre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR264
Basil Scott, C.J.1. It is admitted that the defendant No. 1, by an order of the Court made in an administration suit, is the manager of the property of Haji Usman Haji Oomar who died in or about March 1903.2. The plaintiffs' firm had dealings with Haji Usman's firm at Malegaon. The business of that firm, according to the finding of the lower Court, was, during the lifetime of Haji Usman, carried on by a gumasta named Khanderao.3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on the 30th of May 1906 by presenting the plaint to the officer of the Court at Ahmednagar. In order that the plaintiffs may not be met by a bar of limitation they have to show that there was some acknowledgment binding upon the estate given under Section 19 of the Limitation Act within the three years anterior to the 30th of May 1906. The acknowledgment relied upon for this purpose is dated 2nd of June 1903. It is in the shape of a post-card addressed to the plaintiffs by the gumasta Khanderao from Malegaon in the nam...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Parashram Marwadi Vs. Laxman Runja Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR284
Basil Scott, C.J.1. We answer the question referred to us in the negative.2. Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act provides for the exclusion of the period intervening between the application for a conciliator's certificate and the grant of the certificate under Section 46 for the purpose of computing the period of limitation prescribed for any such suit and application.3. Now the period prescribed for any such suit or application, as is referred to in Section 48 is, according to the judgment of the Privy Council, twelve years. That period is prescribed by Article 132 of the Limitation Act (XV) of 1877 and of the Limitation Act (IX) of 1908.4. 'The period prescribed' is an expression which is used in the same sense in various provisions of the legislature in part materia: for example, in Section 72 of Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, in Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act of 1877, and Section 3 of the Limitation Act of 1908; and we, therefore, conclude that in Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulali AbdulhuseIn Vs. Miakhan Abdulhusein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR268
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit relates to a portion of a house alleged to have been given away by one Mariam, the widow of Abdool Husen Kamrudin, to her grand-daughter Rukhiaboo, the daughter of Abdul Ali, the first plaintiff, and the wife of the first defendant Miakhan. The deed of gift in favour of Rukhiaboo was dated the 3rd of June 1899.2. In the year 1900, Mariam found herself involved in three suits in all of which an issue was raised and decided against her as to whether she had any title to the house in question, which had originally belonged to her husband Abdool Husen Kamrudin. The decision against Mariam in those suits is now relied upon as evidence against Miakhan, the husband of Rukhiaboo, although not only were the causes of action in those suits concerned with a different portion of the house to that which was the subject of the gift in favour of Rukhiaboo, but the suits themselves were instituted a year subsequent to that deed of gift. Without considering the questi...
Tag this Judgment!Anandibai Ram Pal Vs. Hari Suba Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR287
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are shortly these: Upendra, Waman, Rampal (defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively), Hari, Keshav and Shri nivas were members of a joint Hindu family. The first three of them separated from the rest under a deed of partition in 1888 (Exhibit 44), the last three continuing joint as before.2. On these facts the lower Court has found that the last three persons either continued as before to be coparceners or that they '(if the legal fiction is to be employed) must be held as having immediately reunited with each other after executing Exhibit 44.'3. The legal correctness of the latter view as to reunion is challenged by the learned pleader for the appellant on the authority of the Privy Council judgment in Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai (1903) L.R. 80 IndAp 180. There it was held 'that there is no presumption, when one co-parcener separates from the others that the latter remained united,' but that the agreement to remain ...
Tag this Judgment!Vyankappacharya Shrinivasacharya Vs. Yamnasani Radhasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR256
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. This was a suit to recover the property in dispute from the defendant on the allegation that it originally belonged to one Solbanna, who sold it on the 4th of July 1903 to Guracharya by Exhibit 11; that Guracharya having died in 1905 it descended to his widow Laxmibai; that she sold it, on the 2nd of October 1907, to the plaintiff by a sale-deed (Exhibit 12). The defendant who was in actual possession pleaded that she was the owner of the property, and that Guracharya's purchase (Exhibit 11) was benami for her, because she having been in his keeping, he had purchased the property for her, in his name, with her own money.2. In the Court of first instance the issues raised were:--Whether the defendant had purchased the house in suit from Solbanna with her own money and got from him the sale-deed (Exhibit 11) in Guracharya's name benami for her? That issue was found in the affirmative. The second issue was:--Whether the plaintiff had notice of that fact? And the Co...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State Vs. Gajanan Krishna Mavlankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR273
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. In my opinion, on a proper construction of Section 424 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, notice was necessary in this case, as a condition precedent to suit. The words in the section are: 'No suit shall be instituted against the Secretary of State in Council, or against a public officer in respect of an act purporting to be done by him in his official capacity.' From the repetition of the word 'against', I think the 'act,' described in the section, was meant to relate only to the public officer, not to the Secretary of State. It shows that the Legislature intended to differentiate between the Secretary of State and other public officers. Further, if the words 'in respect of an act' & c., had been intended by the Legislature to apply to the Secretary of State also, it would have been more appropriate to use the words 'done by either' instead of the words 'done by him.'2. The question is not quite free from difficulty. In The Secretary of State for India in Cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »