Mumbai Court February 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.
In Re: Laxman Rangu Rangari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.947
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with this matter after there had been an appeal in the Sessions Court, and after that Court had confirmed the conviction and sentence. The terms of Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, do not give any jurisdiction to the District Magistrate under the circumstances of this case. The Court of Revision such as that of the District Magistrate can only interfere where there was no appeal to the Sessions Court. Here there was an appeal to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court did exercise its jurisdiction. And, further, even if the District Magistrate had jurisdiction, he ought not to have disposed of the matter without giving notice to the petitioner. The District Magistrate was clearly wrong in upsetting the order of the trying Magistrate merely on the representation of the opponent. Therefore, the rule must be made absolute by setting aside the order of the District Magistrate and restoring that o...
Somchand Bhikhabhai Vs. Chhaganlal Khubchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR207
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. This suit was filed in the District Court of Broach, ostensibly under the provisions of Section 92 of the Civil Pro cedure Code, by certain persons interested in a certain charity property situate within the jurisdiction of that Court. Being a suit in the mofussil the consent of the Advocate-General was not necessary provided the consent of a Collector, or other officer of the Local Government, authorized previously by the Local Government, had been obtained.2. The plaint bears the endorsement: 'Permission is granted under Sections 92, 93 of the Civil Procedure Code. G. Wiles, for Collector.'3. Now the person authorized by Government Resolution to Consent to the institution of suits in the District of Broach is the Collector; and Mr. Wiles, who is the Assistant Collector, appears to have made the endorsement on the assumption that the Collector being ill he was entitled to discharge all his . functions.4. The duties which are imposed upon Collectors by Governm...
Bai Ganga Vs. Rajaram Atmaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR245
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In the year 1897 a decree was obtained upon a mortgage under which the mortgaged property was sold and the sale-proceeds proved insufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, the balance of Rs. 581 remaining payable according to the terms of the decree by the mortgagors. The mortgagee was also the holder of another mortgage executed by the same mortgagors upon other property. One of the mortgagors after the decree had been passed died, and his mother who was the surviving mortgagor, instituted a redemption suit to redeem the other mortgage which had not been the subject of the decree and which for the sake of convenience we will speak of as the mortgage of property B. She obtained a decree for redemption and an order for payment of the mortgage-debt by installments, the mortgagee being entitled to a charge on the property B until his claim was satisfied. 2. In August 1908 before twelve years had elapsed from the passing of the decree of 18 97, the mortgagee applied...
In Re: Bai Jamnabhai Wife of Liladar Khetsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR487
Robertson, J. 1. In this case Mr. Goverdhandas Goculdas Tejpal has taken out a summons calling upon one Haridas Naranji to show cause why the order made by me on the 19th of November 1910 should not be set aside. The order referred to was made at the instance of the petitioner Haridas Naranji and directed Mr. Govardhandas Goculdas Tejpal to pay into Court the sum of Rs. 4141-9-1, being the amount due by him to Bai Jamnabai the minor at the foot of her Samadaskat account,2. The summons is supported on two grounds (1) that no notice of the particular order which was made on the 19th of November was ever given to Mr. Tejpal; and (2) that the facts were not fully set before the Court.3. As to the notice that was sent, it appears that on the 18th of November a letter signed by Messrs. Maneklal & Co., the petitioner's attorneys, was served on Mr. Tejpal and it distinctly gives him notice that an application will be made the next day to the Sitting Judge in Chambers for an order in terms of p...
Pherozshaw Jamsetji Comissariatvalla Vs. Waghji Kuverji Raje Shirke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR158
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In this case the suit has been valued for the purposes of Court-fees at Rs. 540, It is a suit which falls within s. 7, paragraph (4), Sub-sections (c) and (d) of the Court fees Act and therefore according to the Suits Valuation Act of 1877, the value as determinate for the computation of Court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction is the same.2. The suit has been disposed of by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana. Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts' Act provides that ''Except as provided in Sections sixteen, seventeen and twenty-six, the District Judge shall be the Court of appeal from all decrees and orders passed by the Subordinate Courts from which an appeal lies under any law for the time being in force', and Section 26 provides that 'In all suits decided by a Subordinate Judge of the First Class in the exercise of his ordinary and special original jurisdiction of which the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds five thousand rupees...
Kishen Parshad Vs. Har NaraIn Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR359
Robson, J.1. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not the suit is barred by the Indian Limitation Act of 1877.2. There is no doubt that when first brought, it was well within the statutory period of three years, but it is contended by the respondents that it was not then brought by all the proper and necessary plaintiffs, and that afterwards, when the record was amended in that respect, the statutory time had expired.3. The suit was commenced by the first three plaintiffs on the record. They are the managing members of an undivided Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law, and, as such managing members, they carry on the business of money-lenders together at Hanumanganj in the district of Ballia, as a firm, under the name and style of Manorath Bhagat Dhana Ram.4. The other members of the joint family do not participate in the management of that business or 'shop,' as it is called, and the loan transactions out of which the claim arises were negotiated and...
Haji Ashfaq HusaIn Vs. Gauri Sahai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR367
Mersey, J.1. The substantial question in this case is whether an application for the execution of a decree absolute obtained by the respondent for the sale of some property which had been mortgaged to him by the appellants is barred by Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. There is also a further question, namely, whether a similar application had not already been made to the Court and dismissed on the 27th November, 1905, so as to make the present application res judicata.2. The litigation which has led up to this dispute has been very long, and it has been somewhat complicated, but the story can be told, for present purposes, in a few sentences.3. The respondent was the holder of a mortgage of the interest of the appellants and of a lady named Musammat Sakina in certain lands. The mortgage debt was a joint debt, and the mortgaged property was joint property. Default was made in payment of the debt, and thereupon the respondent instituted proceedings for the recovery of the mo...
Damodar Narayan Chowdhri Vs. Dalgliesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR396
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Bengal, which reversed that of the Subordinate Judge of Tirhut. The suit was brought to recover possession of two areas of land, one containing 156 bighas and a fraction and the other 25 bighas and a fraction. The ground of the suit as to each plot was that the plaintiffs were the proprietors of the land and the substantial defendant Dalgliesh had been their tenant, that the tenancy had expired, and that the plaintiffs were in law entitled to recover the land. The now respondents represent Dalgliesh. There is no doubt of the fact that the plaintiffs were proprietors as they alleged, and no doubt that Daigliesh was their tenant, and no doubt that the leases under which Dalgliesh held had, according to their terms, come to an end. The defense as to the larger plot of land was that Dalgliesh had acquired occupancy rights in the land. There was a further defense, based upon Section 45 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›