Mumbai Court March 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.
Mahadev Ramchandra Patkar Vs. Mahadaji Moreshvar Pendulkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1157; 12Ind.Cas.956
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J. 1. The appellant relies upon a purchase at an execution sale of the rights of occupancy in a Khoti village. The lower appellate Court has held that the purchase is inoperative and conferred no rights upon the appellant, because it did not satisfy the conditions required by the provisions of Section 9 of the Khoti Settlement Act (1 of 1880).2. The argument in the Court below appears to have been this: the appellant relied upon the fact that the Khot had given his consent to the purchase ; and in proof of it he relied upon a Botkhat, in which there was an entry made by the Khoti Settlement Officer to the effect that the tenant's right was not transferable 'without the consent of the Khot'. The learned District Judge is of opinion that this entry, as to the consent of the Khot, is a mere surplus age, and cannot affect the rights of the parties. Under Section 9 the rights of occupancy tenants shall not be transferable. The words are wide enough to point to the in...
Cowasji Temulji Vs. Kisandas Tricamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR649
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, brought this suit as executors of the will of Hirjibhai Dhanjisha, and the prayer in the plaint was to recover by partition the plaintiffs' one fourth share in the land described. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs had acquired any share or partible interest in the land. The first question which arises is, therefore, what interest the plaintiffs have in the land, and whether that interest entitles them to partition. The plaintiffs stand in the shoes of the original owners Shekh Sadudin and two other persons, who had mortgaged the land to one W. Spiers.2. The nature of the plaintiffs' interest has to be ascertained from certain prior decrees which have been passed on the subject of the property. These decrees are Exhibits 57 and 58, and were recorded by consent in 1866 in order to terminate a dispute which had arisen in 1864 between the original owners and the mortgagee, W. Spiers. In substance these decrees provide tha...
Lakmidas Khushal Vs. Bhaiji Khushal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR313
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The point of law urged in this Second Appeal, in my opinion, fails. The parties are the owners respectively of two fields, which are opposite to each other. Plaintiff, the present appellant, is owner of Survey No. 88, and defendants own Survey No. 87. The two properties are separated by a narrow passage. The plaintiff alleged that water from his field passed on from its south-west corner to the narrow passage; that thence it flowed on to the defendant's field and that there it ran along a well-defined passage. The plaintiff complained that the defendant had obstructed this latter passage by raising an embankment so as to prevent the water entering his field. The defendant denied the existence of any such passage for water in the field. So the question at issue was whether there was or had been any such passage as alleged by the plaintiff. Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff deposed that the passage in dispute had existed all along and was still visible...
Emperor Vs. Noor Mahomed Suleman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR209
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The facts of this case are shortly these. The petitioners, manager and servant respectively of a toyshop in Shekh Memon Street, exhibited in the windows of the shop, overlooking the public road, certain clockwork toys during the last Diwali festival. The result of the exhibition was that thousands of people collected on the road to witness the toys. The Magistrate finds on the evidence that there were dangerous rushes in consequence; people were knocked down; and great obstruction and danger were caused to those using the road. The petitioners were asked by the Police to stop the exhibition but they would not obey.2. There can be no doubt upon these findings on the evidence that there were obstruction, danger, and injury to the persons using the public way; which amounted to a public nuisance.3. The only question is whether that nuisance was caused by the petitioners.4. The efficient cause of the nuisance was the act of the petitioners. It consisted in the ...
In Re: the Lakhmidas Khimji Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. (In Liqu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR558
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We see no reason to differ from the conclusion at which we arrived yesterday that the sending of a Memorandum of appeal to the respondent was not such a notice as is contemplated in Section 169 of the Companies Act, because it is not a notice given in the manner in which notices, of appeal are ordinarily given under the Code of Civil Procedure. The only provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which we have been referred to regarding notices of appeal is that contained in Order XLI, Rule 14, which provides that notice of the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal shall be given in a certain manner. It is to be affixed in the Court-house and a like notice is to be served on the respondent or his pleader in the manner provided for the service on a defendant of a summons to appear and answer, and all the provisions applicable to such summons are to apply to such notice.2. Then, it was argued that the words of Section 169 do not pro-' vide for service of notice up...
Emperor Vs. Suleman Ibrahim Nakhuda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR201
Heaton, J. 1. I agree. I cannot see that the commitment is illegal. It may be convenient or it may be indiscreet, but we are only concerned with the question of illegality. Therefore, I agree with the order proposed....
Emperor Vs. Amir Bala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR203
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J. 1. Clause 3 of Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:--Such Court after examining such proceedings and requiring from the Magistrate any further information or evidence, which it thinks necessary, may pass such order on the case as it thinks fit. 2. The words are wide enough to give discretionary power to the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to deal with the case on the merits and pass such order as the circumstances of the case, in his opinion, may require.3. We must, therefore, make the Rule absolute and ask Sessions Judge to deal with the matter, having regard to this order.Heaton, J. 4. I agree to the proposed order. Unless the words used in Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code are intended to confer on the Court of Session power to go into the merits in a case of this kind, and, indeed, unless they require it to go into the merits, if any point is raised which involves the merits, I am unable to. understand what t...
Emperor Vs. Mahomed Isaf Habib
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR200
ORDER1. The prisoner, it is true, was tried separately for the two offences of cheating ; but he could have been tried at one trial for both: Section 234, Criminal Procedure Code; and in that case the sentences could have been legally ordered to run concurrently: Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, the trials took place on one and the same day and one after the other. So it was for all practical purposes one trial. The Court, therefore, does not consider the order of the trial Magistrate in this case to be illegal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›