Mumbai Court September 1911 Judgments
Parvatibai Trimbak Agashe Vs. Yeshwant Krishna Shete
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1204
Russell J.1. As the lower appellate Court has said that this is a novel point upon which there is no authority I propose shortly to state the facts of this case, which are admitted on both sides.2. The two defendants are brothers, one a major and the other a minor. They earn at most Rs. 250 from agriculture and only Rs. 30 from the rent of two houses. One of them holds a scholarship of Rs. 15 a month in the Veterinary College, Bombay, the other is a student in the Training College, Poona and gets a stipend of Rs. 7 a month. Last year he was a school-master for about ten months and earned Rs. 9 a month. If the scholarship and stipend are added to Rs. 30 the total is Rs. 294 so that in that case the total income is not principally from agriculture. The question is, can these two brothers be deemed to be agriculturists within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in respect of the Rs. 15 a month and Rs. 7 a month abovementioned respectively? Clause (1) to Section 2 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. F.P. Fernandez
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1187; 12Ind.Cas.971
RUSSELL, J.We think the Magistrate has taken a perfectly correct view of the accused's conduct. He distributed broadcast this insinuation against the directors of the Company-knowing that the complainant and other directors charged no fees for their services, and distributed it to members of the public who could not possibly be interested in the Company's affairs. For these reasons we confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal.Chandavarkar, J. 1. I desire to add a few words, having regard to the importance of the question raised here and the necessity of making clear the law applicable at a time when several companies in the interest of the public are being started for the growth of commercial enterprise in the country. I do not think that any decision of ours ought to affect the right of any subject of His Majesty to expose the mal-practices of companies started in the interest of the public. I will look at this question, which has been raised in this case, both from t...
Tag this Judgment!Velchand Chhaganlal Vs. Lieut. A. Flagg
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR18; 17Ind.Cas.13
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The appellants are a firm of money-lenders who through the agency of a firm of commission agents in Bombay advanced to the first respondent a sum of Rs. 2440 on or about the 14th of October 1908. Prior to that payment an agreement upon a stamped paper of Rs. 30 was signed by the first respondent for whose benefit the payment was made. By that agreement he stated that he had received from the appellants Rs. 5500 which he and the second defendant, who was then intended to sign as a surety, agreed to repay in Ahmedabad or at the option of the appellants in Nasirabad or elsewhere in monthly instalments of Rs. 50 for the first twelve months and after that of Rs. 100 for another twenty-six months and the balance at the end of the thirty-ninth month, the instalments to begin from 5th November 1908. And it was stipulated in two subsequent clauses as follows:-' If we fail to pay any instalment on due date as agreed above we jointly or severally promise to pay the who,se...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Ghela Vs. Rajaram Amtha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR14; 13Ind.Cas.851
Chandavarkar, J.1. Both the lower Courts have misunderstood the decisions of this Court on the question whether and when oral evidence is admissible to prove that what purports to be a deed of sale represents, according to the true intention of the parties, a transaction of mortgage. The effect of those decisions is that, where Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act does not apply, such evidence is admissible, under proviso 1 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, only when the element of fraud or other similar element mentioned in the proviso exists to invalidate the deed. The Subordinate Judge, First Class, who decided this case on appeal, has relied in support of his view on some dicta in one of the judgments in Sangita v. RamappaILR (1909) 34 Bom. 59 without carefully noticing their context; and the result of the Subordinate Judge's decision is that he has treated the deed of sale as one of mortgage on the evidence of a contemporaneous agreement between the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Sheodas Daulatram Marwadi Vs. Narayan Asaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1153; 12Ind.Cas.811
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. We have already held in Dayaram v. Laxman : (1911)13BOMLR284 that the two years' time specified in Section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908 is not the period of limitation 'prescribed'. We are now asked whether a suit for which provision is made in Section 31(1), if instituted on a Monday, one day after the period of two years from the date of the passing of the Act has expired, can be taken to have been instituted within the period of two years.2. learned Subordinate Judge, who made the reference, thinks the suit must be taken to be within time, relying upon Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi ILR (1898) Mad. 179. and Shooshee Bhusan v. Gobind Chunder Roy ILR (1890) Cal. 231. In the last mentioned case it was held that where thirty days were allowed for making a deposit in Court under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act 1885, the deposit might be made within thirty-one days if the thirtieth day fell on a Sunday. The learned Judges deduced from the cases of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaiji Shamrao Darekar Vs. Hajimiya Mahamad Amin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR314
Beaman, J.1. All the facts material to be known are that a mortgage was jointly effected by Sakhling and Anapurnabai. Whether these two persons were joint mortgagors, or tenants-in-common, does not appear and, in my opinion, is now immaterial.2. Subsequently Anapurnabai redeemed alone, without the knowledge of Sakhling. This was in 1882. On the same day she re-mortgaged without the knowledge of Sakhling to the defendants. The actual physical possession was not changed. The old mortgagees are found to have remained in possession as before under the new mortgage, but whether as mortgagees of the previous mortgage or after having attorned to the new mortgagees does not appear.3. The plaintiff sues as the assignee of the heirs of Sakhling to redeem.4. According to the decision of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in the case of Vasude v. Balaji ILR (1902) 26 Bom. 500, the effect of the redemption of a mortgage by one of two or more joint or co-mortgagors, is to extinguish the whole equity of redemption...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Jeshanglal Vs. Virchand Jeychand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1222; 12Ind.Cas.903
Beaman, J. 1. This Rule has been taken out by the defendant No. 2 in suit No. 747 of 1910 to have the ex parte decree, dated the 16th June 1911, set aside. It is admitted that, he had notice and he has actually filed a written statement. So that the only point to be considered is whether he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. Mr. Jafferbhai in showing cause against the Rule has contended that the decree was not ex parte and that as in fact defendant No. 2 was present in Court it is impossible to argue that he was prevented from appearing. On referring to my notes, I find it to be a matter of record that when the suit was called on defendant No. 2 was called and making no response was declared to be absent. It is, however, sworn by the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 was actually in Court at the time, and upon this ground and the authority of two decisions of this Court, Honapa v. Narsapa ILR (1898) 23 Bom. 406 and Esmail Ebrahim v. Haji Jan Mahomed ILR (1908) 33 Bom. 475, ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Baba Gujar Vs. Shrimant Jijibai Saheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR9; 13Ind.Cas.849
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sues the defendant as pledge of certain ornaments from an unauthorised pledgor for detention of those ornaments after demand made on or about the nth of August 1907. That claim was preferred after the plaintiff had recovered judgment in a former action, No. 159 of 1897^ against the pledgor but the judgment so recovered has not been satisfied.2. It has been pleaded that the judgment in the suit of 1897 's a bar to this suit on the ground that the pledgor and the pledgee were joint: tort-feasors and that upon the authority of Brinsmead v. Harrison (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 547 the matter has passed into rest judicata and cannot be again agitated.3. It has, however, been pointed out by Mr. Justice Willes in the judgment of the lower Court in Brinsmead v. Harrison (1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 584 that a fresh assignment in respect of a tort subsequent to that originally sued upon will not come within the scope of the first judgment so as to bar the fresh assignment. W...
Tag this Judgment!Hillaya Subbaya Hegde Vs. Narayanappa Timmaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1200; 12Ind.Cas.913
Chandavarkar, J. 1. The facts of the case, as found by the Court below, are shortly these. The property belonged to one Ganpaya who died in the year 1878, leaving him surviving a widow by name Devamma, and a widowed sister-in-law. These two widows on the 24th of September 1878 sold the property to one Ganpaya Adenaya. Ganpaya Adenaya in the year 1892 mortgaged it to the respondent-plaintiff's uncle Devappa. Ganpaya Adenaya died in 1901 and in the year 1897 Devamma died. The respondent now sues to foreclose; the appellant resists the claim on the ground that Devamma had no right to mortgage the property beyond her life-time, and that he, as the reversionary heir of her husband, is entitled to it, free of the mortgage.2. The District Judge, without finding whether the appellant is reversionary heir, has allowed the respondent's claim. He has held that Ganpaya Adenaya, the respondent's mortgagor, became owner of the property under the sale from Devamma. That view of the law cannot be acce...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji Coovarji Vs. Kala Raghunath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1193; 12Ind.Cas.911
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant from a judgment passed by the District Judge with reference to certain execution proceedings against him.2. Two creditors had obtained decrees and attached certain immoveable property of the appellant, and other creditors had obtained decrees but had merely put in applications for execution without issuing attachment. The 22nd of September 1909 was the date fixed by the Court for the sale of the attached property, and upon that date a third person, at the instance of the appellant, came to the Court with sufficient monies to satisfy in full the decretal claims of the two attaching creditors. The money was accepted by the Nazir of the Court and a receipt therefore was given to the person making the payment. The payment so made was made according to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 55, which says that where the amount decreed with costs and all charges and expenses resulting from the attachment of any property are paid into Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »