Mumbai Court April 1911 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Braz H. De Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR494
Scott, C.J. 1. The question referred to me may be formulated thus :-Whether the reconstruction of a wall upon its own foundation is necessarily the 'erection of a building' within Section. 96 of the District Municipal Act According to the explanation appended to that section the expression ' to erect a building' throughout Chapter IX includes any material alteration, enlargement, or reconstruction of any building. Whether the reconstrution of a Wall of whatever importance forming part of a house is necessarily the 'erection of a building', depends upon whether the interpretation clause, Section 3 (7), is to be taken as substituting impliedly for the word 'building' wherever it occurs in the Act not merely all erections falling within the ordinary comprehension of the term 'building' but also all other things included within the definition. It is recognised in England to be a rule with regard to the effect of interpretation clauses of a comprehensive nature such as we have here that the...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mahakore Vs. Bai Mangla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR564
Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts which are admitted are shortly these. On the 1st of November 1891, the deceased Damodardas made a credit entry of Rs. 20,000 in his books in the name of his wife, Harkore, carrying interest at 4 1/2 per cent. The entry was made as of the 30th of November 1890. He also treated the amount of the entry as belonging to his wife in his annual balance sheet showing his assets and liabilities, in his Samadaskat book, and in his Vyajvahi which contained his interest account, and in which interest was calculated on the amount at varying rates. In November 1895, Harkore went on pilgrimage and from the entries in Damodardas's books it appears that before going she had with' drawn Rs. 150 odd from her account. Harkore died on the 2nd of March 1901. On the 7th of February 1903, Damodardas debited Rs. 15,000 to her account and credited the same amount to the three sons of his and her daughter, Mahakore. On the 23rd of February 1903 he made a will, in which he stated that...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Baba Yeshwant Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR505
Chandavarkar, J. 1. The question before us is whether the District Magistrate has jurisdiction under Sections 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a fresh inquiry into the case of a person 'discharged' by a Subordinate Magistrate under Sections 119 of the Code. The decision of the question turns upon the interpretation of the words 'any accused person' and 'discharged' used in Sections 437. There is no definition of 'accused person' in the Code and we see no sound reason for confining its application to a person against whom 'a complaint' has been made under Sections 200 of the Code. Persons proceeded against under Chapter VIII of the Code are persons against whom there is an accusation in the ordinary acceptation of the word. The word 'discharged' is also not defined in the Code and there is no valid ground for departing in respect of it from the rule of construction that where in a Statute the same word is used in different sections it ought to be interpreted in the same se...
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Venkatesh Buddu Shetti Vs. Ganpa Narayan Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR678
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. It is necessary to state at the outset the' facts found by the lower Court of appeal, so far as they are material for the purpose of the two questions of law argued before us.2. The facts are briefly these.3. On the 3rd of January 1896, defendant 1, as manager of the undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and defendants 2 and 3, mortgaged by a registered deed (Exhibit 42) ten lands to one Venkatesh Shetti, deceased, represented in this litigation by the plaintiffs, for a debt due from the family. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 400, of which Rs. 200 were paid at the time of its execution to the mortgagor; as to the balance, the mortgagee covenanted by the mortgage-deed to pay it to one Nagappa, a previous mortgagee of defendant I'S family.4. Venkatesh Shetti, the mortgagee, having failed to pay to Nagappa, defendant I sold to defendant 5, on the 10th of July 1897, some of the lands mortgaged under Exhibit 42 and other property not covered by tha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Virchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR503
Chandavarkar, J.1. The Sessions Judge has clearly committed an error in holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, because of the alteration in the sentence, made by the Magistrate, after he had delivered judgments. It is true that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to alter his judgment and the sentence, after he has once delivered it and signed it. But for the purposes of the learned Sessions Judge's jurisdiction, so far as this appeal was concerned, that was the very mistake which the learned Judge was called upon to correct by way of appeal; and therefore, the appeal was within his jurisdiction to that extent at any rate. I must, therefore, make the rule absolute and remit the appeal to the Sessions Court for disposal according to law.Heaton, J. 2. I agree. The sentence which was actually imposed which, unless altered, the jailor will carry out, was the sentence of one month and one day's imprisonment. It is an appealable sentence; and when an appeal is presented that ap...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmichand Rewachand Vs. Kachubhai Gulabchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR517
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the suit abated as soon as the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 came into force so far as regarded the applicant's father who was a party, and the application to set aside the abatement by adding the applicant as the legal representative, not having been made within sixty days, is barred by Article 171 of the Limitation Act of 1908. It is obvious, however, that in a partition suit all the parties should be before the Court. The suit has actually reached the stage of a commission to divide the property, and the applicant is a sharer. Nothing in the Code limits or affects the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, and under Order Rule 10, the Court 'may at any stage of the proceedings, order that the name of any person whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. We therefore ord...
Tag this Judgment!Kashibai Ganesh Vs. Sitabai Raghunath Shivram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR552
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have to decide is whether among Hindus in this presidency governed by the law of the Mitakshara a paternal uncle's widow or a paternal uncle's grandson is to be preferred as an heir for the purpose. of grant of Letters of Administration. That the paternal uncle's widow is a gotraja sapinda eligible for inheritance results from the decision in Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai ILR (1876) 2 Bom 388, which was affirmed by the Judicial Committee. The question which now comes before the Court was anticipated by Mr. Justice West in his judgment in that case in the following passage.The recognition of the widows of gotraja sapindas : as themselves gotraja sapindas, however slender the basis on which it originally rested so far as collaterals are concerned, has become a part of the customary law wherever the doctrines of the Mitakshara prevail, and the Courts must give effect to it accordingly. Whether, indeed, the widow of a collateral should take before ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedbhai Habibbhoy Vs. Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Petit Bart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1061
Davar, J.1. The appellant, Mr. Ahmedbhai Habibbhai, a well-known wealthy Khoja merchant of Bombay, in January 1907 entered into a contract to sell a very valuable property situate at Mount Pleasant Road, Malabar Hill, to the late Mrs. Awabai Fraraji Petit. The offer and acceptance resulting in the contract of sale of this property, is evidenced by two letters, respectively dated the 31st of January and the 1st of February 1907. By his letter Mr. Ahmedbhai agrees to make out a good title to the property free from all incurabrances and claims whatsoever, and the sale was to be completed within two months from the date of the offer. A formal preliminary agreement containing the terms of this contract was within the contemplation of the parties, and a draft of the contemplated agreement was prepared by Bai Awabai's solicitors, but, for reasons not necessary to discuss, the same was not executed. There is no difference between the parties as to the terms of the contract arrived at between t...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Vishnu Dhamankar Vs. Vishnu Narayan Dhamankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1161
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff in this suit prays for his half share in certain ancestral properties upon a partition and claims a declaration that in cumbrances created by his father, the first defendant, by way of mortgage in favour of two sets of defendants, namely, the Rodes and Risbud, are not binding as against him and on his share in the properties.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is entitled to have his half share in the properties described in the plaint, partitioned and put into his possession but subject to the mortgages created by Exhibit 42, a mortgage of the 14th of November 1898 for Rs. 12,000 in favour of the Rodes, and Exhibits 25 and 36 being mortgages of the 20th of June 1889 and the 21st of June 1896 in favour of Risbud for Rs. 9,712.3. The mortgagees in each case have filed suits to enforce their mortgages in consequence of the institution of this partition suit and by consent the evidence recorded in this suit is to be taken as...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath V. Vaidya Vs. Mulraj Khatau
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR590
Scott, C.J.1. In this case the following facts are undisputed. The plaintiff held two policies upon the life of Dwarkadas Dharamsey, one in the London and Lancashire Assurance Company and the other in the New York Assurance Company, which had been deposited with him by Dwarkadas as security for pecuniary liabilities incurred by the plaintiff from time to time on behalf of Dwarkadas.2. On the the 23rd of April 1909, the plaintiff was responsible upon promissory notes and bills of Dwarkadas to the extent of Rs. 75,000 and in July those obligations were renewed. Of those a sum of Rs. 50,000 was payable by the 1st of September and Rs. 25,000 by the 20th of September 1909 to the Indian Specie Bank. On the 20th of August 1909, the plaintiff received notice from the Bank to discharge the obligations upon their due dates and was informed that the advances would not be renewed. On the 28th of August Dwarkadas committed suicide, and in the month of September the plaintiff had to deposit security...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »