Mumbai Court July 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.
Alisaheb Baba Diwakar Vs. MohidIn Sadik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR874; 12Ind.Cas.375
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. On the 21st of November 1904 the plaintiff contracted with the co-owners of 15/16 share of two jungles to cut down and convert into charcoal trees of certain descriptions, and on the 13th of February 1905 a more formal document was executed in which the material provisions, were as follows:---The above-mentioned properties which have been our aneestral (sic) properties and which have been in out possession and UNDer our Vahivat up to this day, stand in Government records ill the name of Lahuji Amrutrao Raje Mulaue, he being a member of the eldest brunch of the family. As to that--excepting the trees standing in the one anna share of Lahuji Amrutrao out of the said property--all our rights and interest and ownership for the purpose of cutting the trees are agreed to be given to yon. The terms in respect thereof are as follows:--1. The trees appertaining to our share in both the properties are agreed to be given to you for a price of Rs. 3,995. Out of that Its. l...
Secretary of State Vs. Narayan Kashiram Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR686; 12Ind.Cas.29
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The circumstances under which this appeal has been preferred by Government to recover the Court-fees in Suit No. 261 of 1906 are shortly these. That was a suit for partition and it appears it was settled by the parties out of Court. The Court dismissed the suit upon their joint application, throwing the costs on the parties. It was a pauper suit, and the Subordinate Judge directed that there should be no order under Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), i. e., no provision made for the Court-fees to. which the Government were entitled. It is stated by the Government Pleader before us that no copy of the decree dismissing the suit was sent to the Collector, as required by Civil Circular No. 65 of the High Court Civil Circulars. Whether that was so or not, the suit having been dismissed in October 1908, Government had the right to come up to the High Court and ask this Court, in the exercise of its power under the Extraordinary Jurisdiction...
Maung KyIn Vs. Ma Shwe La
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR797
Robson, J. 1. The appellants are defendants in this action which was brought by the respondents in the Chief Court of Lower Burma on its original civil side. Judgment was there given in favour of the respondents, and was affirmed on appeal to the Court on its appellate side.2. The action was brought to recover possession of certain parcels of land which may be conveniently referred to as the first, second, third, and fourth hereditaments. The respondents claimed under certain deeds which purported to be absolute conveyances, but which the appellants contended were meant to be, and had always in fact been, treated by all the parties concerned as mortgagees only, and they tendered evidence of the acts and conduct of the parties to that effect. This evidence was excluded by the Courts below under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the principal question arising on this appeal is whether or not that evidence was properly rejected.3. The respondents also claimed that the appel...
The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, Limited Vs. Aga Mahomed Khaleel ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR813
Atkinson, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated the 21st December 1908, made in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, whereby the judgment and decree of the Chief Justice of the same Court made in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction were reversed, and judgment entered for the respondent the plaintiff in the suit, for the sum of Rs. 11,913-4-6 damages for the breach of contract for the sale and delivery to the plaintiff of 1,500 teakwood railway sleepers.2. The facts of the case are not complicated, and as far as it is necessary to set them out are as follows:-3. A person named M. Chinnappa Iyer, of 209, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras, in the month of May 1905, entered into a contract with the Madras Railway Company for the sale to them of 1,500 teakwood sleepers of the dimensions 12 by 12 by 7, deliverable in two installments of 750 each.4. The Company had advertised for tenders for 3,000 teak sleepers on a specific...
The Municipal Commissioner Vs. Mathuradas Gokaldas Pasta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR640
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Bombay.2. The question of law referred arises upon the construction of Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 379A of the Bombay Municipal Act (III of 1888) as amended by Bombay Act V of 1905, and is as follows:-When the owner of a building has let his rooms separately to individual tenants, and these cause overcrowding, is the notice, to abate the same, to be given, under Section 379A (1) of the Bombay Municipal Act, III of 1888, to the owner or to the tenants3. Our answer is, the notice must be to the owner.4. To construe properly Clause 2 of Section 379A, we must bear in mind what has gone before in clause 1 of the section.5. The latter clause provides (omitting portions which are not material here) that 'where it appears to the Commissioner that any building or any room or rooms therein used for human habitation is overcrowded,' he may apply to a Presidency Magistra...
Emperor Vs. Thaver Issaji Boree
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR635
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of three offences, two under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, in that the assaulted two public servants, who are Abkara Officers, in order to prevent them from lawfully discharging their duty (sic) as duly as such servants and one under Section 186 of the same Code in that he voluntarily obstructed one of the said plainly (sic) servants in the lawful discharge of his public function2. The facts (sic) found by the Magistrate on which this conviction is founded and which we receipt are shortly these. Sub-Inspector Munsin And Khaine (sic) of the Abkari Department ordered a Customs Constable named Paramesh Ajodhia to search a man who had a red handkerchief (sic) in his and who was found in a street, because the chaught the nam was in possession. of cocaine without licence. The petitioner came up just at that moment in a treating manner (Section) and asked the Constable what he meant by searchi...
Punamchand Sadaram and Co. Vs. Capt. E.J. Mollison
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR658
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are of opinion that the present suit is barred as res judicata. The order dismissing the previous suit was under Section. 120 of Act XIV of 1882. That section provides that if on the day fixed, for the purpose mentioned,. a party does not comply with the order of the Court, the Court may pass a decree against that party or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. It is contended that the dismissal of the suit on the ground of the plaintiffs default to appear in obedience to the Court's order was not a decree passed against him, but a mere order which does not preclude the party from filing a second suit on the same cause of action. But the order dismissing the suit was plainly a decree against the plaintiff; that was the only way of passing a decree against him under the circumstances. Therefore, there was a decree against the present appellant in the previous suit. His present suit is, therefore, barred under Section. 11 of the Code of Civil Proc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›