Mumbai Court June 1911 Judgments
In Re: Abdul Rasul Ismailji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR548
1. We see no reason whatever to admit this application. The Workmen's Breach of Contract Act (Act XIII of 1859) has been construed in a number of cases, and it has been held, without any dissent by all the High Courts, that the Act does not apply, where the advance is literally or practically in the nature of a debt, and where, even assuming that the advance is not in the nature of a debt, the conditions are inequitable. The Magistrate has found that in his opinion the conditions in the present case are inequitable, because the period of employment is indefinite. Apart from that it is evident on a proper construction of the terms of the contract that the advance of Rs. 150 was in the nature of a loan to be repaid by the servant out of the wages which he was to receive; so that the advance' was not to be paid off by the work done but out of the wages he was to receive. 2.The application must be rejected. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Virchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR550
1. It is quite clear from the provisions of Sections 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that where a Magistrate has passed a sentence exceeding one month, then an appeal lies, whether that sentence was passed legally or illegally. The Sessions Judge being once seized of the appeal, the whole appeal becomes open to his Court, and therefore, the Sessions Judge ought to have heard this appeal on the merits also. We make the Rule absolute and, discharging the order under revision, remand the appeal to the Sessions Court for disposal according to law, with reference to the observations made in this judgment....
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur Vs. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR806
Ameer Ali, J. 1. These appeals and cross-appeals from a judgment and decrees of the High Court of Bengal, dated the 5th of June 1905, arise out of certain actions in ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensing to recover possession of seven plots of jungle lands, commonly called garhs, as appertaining to their estate of Pergunnah Pukhuria.2. The main defence to the suits was based on the allegation that the lands in dispute formed part of the defendant's talook of Balasuti, and not of the plaintiffs' zamindari of Pukhuria. It was also urged that the actions were barred by the Statute of Limitation.3. At the trial the plaintiffs appear to have withdrawn or abandoned their claim in respect of plots 5, 6, and 7 ; and the adjudication was thus confined to the first four pieces of property, named respectively, (1) Ramkrishnabaree, (2) Pirijpur, Bagalbari and Krishnapur, treated as one plot, (3) Jote Pailan, and (4) Mantollah.4. A number of issues w...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Mahadu Dhole Vs. Narayan Vithal Mawal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR661
Rao, J.1. The facts of the case are briefly these. The property in dispute was originally mortgaged by defendant No. 1'S father and uncle to plaintiff's father. On 14th February 1885 a decree was passed directing the mortgagors to pay Rs. 7,905-4-3 by seven equal yearly instalments. In default of payment of any instalment at the due date, the mortgaged property was to be sold for the whole sum due. Default having been made in payment of the instalments, the mortgagee put up the property to sale, and purchased it himself on 29th November 1899. The sale was confirmed on 6th January 1900.2. On 7th April 1909 plaintiff, who is the son and legal representative of the auction-purchaser, filed the present suit for possession of the property purchased in 1899. Defendants resisted the claim on several grounds, but their contentions were overruled and a decree was passed in plaintiff's favour, awarding him possession of the property in suit except one piece of land, Prat-bandi No. 14, as to whic...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikhusru Aderji Ghaswala Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR788
Robson, J.1. In form this is an appeal from an Interlocutory Order of the High Court of Bombay, dated the 12th February 1908, which directed the re-hearing of an appeal from a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Poona, dated the 22nd October 1904, in favour of the appellants, but by an Order of His late Majesty in Council it is in effect an appeal on the merits of the suit from a judgment of the High Court dated the 29th July 1907.2. The action was brought by the respondent to eject the appellants from premises known as No. 9, Arsenal Road (formerly known as 23, Staff Lines) within the limits of the Poona Cantonment.3. It was claimed on behalf of the Government of Bombay that the land belonged to them and was only held by the appellants on military or cantonment tenure, which entitled the Government to resume it at their pleasure, subject to compensation for buildings which the tenants might have erected thereon. The appellants, on the other hand, claimed the land as their pri...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Kuppuswami Vs. Tripurabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR940; 12Ind.Cas.529
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have to consider in this case is whether an alienation of her husband's property by a Hindu widow lor the purpose of assisting her husband's reversioner in certain pecuniary difficulties in which he had become involved owing to the assistance which he had given to the widow's cousin Somasundar, is binding upon the son adopted to her husband by the widow after the date of the alienation.2. The authorities discussed by this Court in Vinayak v. Govind ILR (1900) 25 Bom. 129, show that the assent of the nearest reversioner to an alienation by a Hindu widow raises a presumption that the alienation was proper. Now if the facts which have been found by the learned District Judge in the present case are taken into consideration, we do not think it can be contended by any one that the alienation was in fact a proper alienation so as to be binding upon the son adopted subsequent to the alienation, unless it can be said that the consent of the neares...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdulla Haji Pawood Bowla Orphanage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR646
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The instrument upon which we have to adjudicate was prepared for the purpose of declaring the trusts of certain funds placed in the hands of trustees for the establishment, maintenance and management, of a home or homes for poor and destitute female children and waifs of the Mahomedan community in Bombay. The funds amounting to about three lakhs of rupees came into the hands of the trustees from two sources. About one lakh was the result of appeals by Mr. Edwardes, the Commissioner of Police, for funds for a female Mahomedan Orphanage. The rest was provided by the executors and trustees of Abdulla Haji Dawood Bowla to whom a sum of two lakhs was bequeathed by their testator for the establishment and maintenance of such a charitable institution as the trustees should in their absolute discretion think fit.2. The question of Stamp duty has been argued as relating to two distinct matters which for the purposes of duty may be dealt with separately under Section 5 o...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Bapoo Saheb Vs. Cassum Ebrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR583
Davar, J.1. On the 15th of June 1909, the two plaintiffs filed this suit against three defendants, Mahomedali Ebrahim, Cassum Ebrahim and Cawasji Motabhai, alleging that the property in the plaint mentioned was religious charitable property, that the first two defendants had arranged to mortgage the said property to the third defendant pursuant to an order obtained from the Court and got from him Rs. 500 as earnest money, that though the intended mortgage fell through the third defendant had obtained a collusive decree against the first two defendants and that the third defendant had attached the said charitable property and was about to have the same sold.2. They prayed for a scheme, for a declaration that the order authorizing the mortgage was null and void and may be set aside for an order restraining the sale, for accounts, and for further and other relief.3. Pending suit the first defendant died. The suit was called on for hearing before me on the 15th of August last when his name...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Saheb Manaji Rajuji Kalewar Vs. Khandoo Baloo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR577
Davar, J.1. Maloobai, widow of Rajanna Mahadavji, originally petitioned to this Court to be allowed to institute this suit in forma pauperis against Khandoo Baloo, the present defendant, praying for certain reliefs in connection with a document which she alleged the defendant had fraudulently got her to execute. She was granted leave to sue in forma pauperis and her petition became a suit. In that suit she claimed that the defendant may be ordered to deliver up to be cancelled a certain deed of gift which she alleged he had obtained fraudulently from her and she prayed that the title-deeds of her property may be ordered to be returned to her.2. Pending the hearing of the suit she died, but she was a woman who was either herself very astute or was in very astute hands, and before her death she made a will whereby she appointed Rao Saheb Manaji Rajuji Kalewar the executor thereof and she disposed of the property which she was claiming in the suit in certain ways in that will. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Prasad Vs. Mahant Ramrattan Gir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR780
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Calcutta High Court reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra, and dismissing the appellant's suit with costs.2. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage bond executed by the late Raghubans Gir, and purporting to charge certain property appertaining to the Bakulahar Math, of which one Ishwar Gir was formerly Mahant.3. Mahant Ishwar Gir died on the 4th of October 1887. On his death disputes arose as to the succession to the Mahantship. The rival claimants were Raghubans Gir and the respondent Ram Rattan Gir. Both had heen grand Chelahs of Ishwar Gir. Raghubans produced a will in his favour which he succeeded in establishing. Ram Rattan alleged that Ishwar Gir had installed him in his place, and he managed to obtain and keep possession of the property of the Math. Each had strenuous partisans. And the contest was waged with much spirit and a lavish expenditure of borrowed money.4. On the 9th of September 1891 a comp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »