Mumbai Court October 1912 Judgments
The Bank of Bombay Vs. Nandlal Thakerseydas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR1
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from an order and decree of the High Court of Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction reversing the order and decree of Beaman J., who tried the case originally. The Trial Judge dismissed the suit with-' out costs as against the first defendants, the Bank of Bombay, who are the present appellants. The Court of appeal, consisting of Scott C. J. and Batchelor J., made a decree in favour of the plaintiff, with costs.2. The plaintiff, a merchant in Bombay, by his plaint which was filed so far back as November 1904, claimed delivery of 399 bales of cotton which had been entrusted to the second defendant Lakhmidas as muccadum or warehouseman and, as the plaintiff alleged, improperly pledged by him to the Bank. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed payment of the value of the bales in question, and in the event of it being held that he was not entitled to any such relief as aforesaid then he asked that his right should be ascertained and declared suggesting ...
Tag this Judgment!Tripurari Pal Vs. Jagat Tarini Dasi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR72
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that in this case the decision of the High Court cannot be supported. There is, in their Lordships' view, an absolute gift of the shepbait ship to the son Mukunda Murari on his attaining majority and it is not cut down, as far as they can see, by anything that follows. There are provisions in the case of his death as a minor, but no provision cutting down the absolute gift to him. The Words are : ' My present begotten son Mukunda Murari : Will be skebait for the performance of those ceremonies.'2. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty . that the appeal ought to be allowed, and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge restored.3. There will be no order as to the costs incurred in the High Court, except that any costs paid under the order appealed from must be returned, and there will be no costs Of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Harakhbai Vs. Jamnabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR340; 19Ind.Cas.786
Davar, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff against her daughter-in-law and others for the administration of the estate of her late husband Hirji Asoo and for various other consequential reliefs.2. After several attempts to settle matters in dispute between them had failed, I was informed that the plaintiff and the first and the third defendants had referred matters to the arbitration of two friends of the family, and with the consent of the Advocate General, who is the second defendant in the suit, the matter stood over pending the decision of the arbitrators. The first defendant assured the Court that as soon as her differences with the plaintiff were adjusted, she would make arrangements in respect of charities with the Advocate General which would be satisfactory to him.3. On the 3rd of October 1912 when the suit was called on for hearing, I was informed that the arbitrators had made their award the day previous and Mr. Setalvad for the plaintiff asked me to allow the matter to sta...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvandas Parashram Vs. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR85
Beaman, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs, a firm trading under the style of Bhagvandas Parashram, sue the defendant Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji for the sum of roughly Rs. 90,000 odd on account of losses said to have been incurred by him to them in the sale and purchase of 4000 tons of linseed.2. The material facts for the purpose of introducing the points chiefly in controversy are that the plaintiff-firm claimed to be Pukka Adatias doing business in the Bombay market on a very considerable scale. The defendant is a Parsi gentleman of twenty-nine years of age, who, according to his own statement, has never done any settled business but has frequently dabbled, as he calls it, in stocks and shares and occasionally in cotton. Until this disastrous venture of his in linseed he never seems to have dealt in that staple. In September 1909 the defendant Burjorji won the St. Leger Sweep to the amount of a lakh-and-a-quarter and it was with the balance of this money after paying off debts he owned...
Tag this Judgment!Chinapa Karbasapa Lakmanhalli Vs. Ladasaheb Babasaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR205; 19Ind.Cas.394
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question is whether the darkhast which has been issued in this case is barred by limitation. It is suggested that there was a bar of limitation between the date of the plaintiffs second darkhast of the 18th of June 1904 and his third darkhast of the 26th of June 1907.2. The first point urged by the pleader for the appellants was that there was a step-in-aid of execution on the 31st of August 1904. On that date the notice, which had been issued under Section 245 B calling on the judgment-debtor to show cause why he should not be arrested, was returned served, but the defendant did not appear. Under those circumstances the Code provides by Section 245 B (2), that if appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the decree-holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. A warrant was issued by the Court for the arrest of the Judgment-debtor and it appears from the roznama that the-plaintiff's pleader was pres...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Edalji K. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1169
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision, and the order sought to be revised is an order by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate convicting the accused of failure to comply with a notice issued against him under Section 305 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 15. It appears that the petitioner is the owner of certain property which abuts on a street, this street connecting with the Tardeo Road on the one side and Sleater Road on the other. Under Section 305 of the Act a written notice was served upon the petitioner requiring him, among others, to level, metal or pave, drain and light the street running by his premises. That notice was of course issued on the footing that (the street in question was a private street. The petitioner ultimately declined to carry out the notice and sought to justify his refusal on the ground that the street in question was not a private street. This attitude he assumed by reason of the fact that there ran, and...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Shivram Kanvinde Vs. Bhau Atmaram Lad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR36
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. A suit was filed in the year 1888 against two of four,, cousins entitled to certain joint family property in Malvan to recover Government assessment which had been paid under compulsion of law in respect of that property by an owner of another property.2. The two defendants in that suit were sued as managers of the family. They were originally sued in their individual capacity alone, but the plaint was subsequently amended by adding that they were sued as managers. A decree was obtained for the amount of assessment which had been paid by the plaintiff on their behalf and in execution of the decree the property was sold in 1895. The purchaser went into possession in the month of November of that year, and as certain exhibits referred to by the Subordinate Judge in this case show, he obtained decrees for rent against tenants in occupation of portions of the family property so long ago as 1900.3. This suit was filed in 1904 by the purchaser to obtain partition of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kisandas Hirachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1166
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the question before us is whether a certain order for compensation made by a Magistrate under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code is or is not good in law. The facts upon which the point arises are these: The present petitioner held a decree against certain persons. His son and a Civil Court-bailiff went to execute a warrant of attachment in connection with that decree. Thereafter the bailiff reported to the Civil Court that he had been obstructed in levying the attachment by one Ishram. The petitioner subsequently made an application to the Civil Court asking the Subordinate Judge to sanction the prosecution of Ishram. Upon inquiry the Subordinate Judge did not issue a sanction, but himself made an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Ishram's prosecution and sent the papers to the Magistrate. The Magistrate having acquitted Ishram ordered the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code to pay a sum of Rs. 30 in compensation. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gangaram Tukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1163; 17Ind.Cas.1008
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision, and we have had notice served on the District Magistrate, for whom however there is no appearance. The applicant is a Police Head-Constable with nearly thirty years' service to his credit. He has been convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 204, Indian Penal Code, and on appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction has been upheld, though evidently with great reluctance on the part of the learned Judge.2. Now the facts found are that in the course of a certain investigation in a case of theft, the applicant as a Police Officer had a certain document drawn up and signed by Panch, When, however, he came to look at this document he found it so disfigured by interlineations and scratches that he thought it desirable to have the document fairly written out again. Therefore, employing the same writer and the same Panchas, he had the document re-written intextually the same form as the untidy notes which had first been drawn. This r...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshdasacharya Vs. Bhimacharya Bapacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1205; 17Ind.Cas.969
Batchelor, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether a certain application, made by the decree-holder on the 29th July 1907, is to be considered as a step-in-aid of the execution of the decree. If it is to be so considered, then undoubtedly the darkhast is in time. On the 8th of April 1907 the first darkhast was made by the decree -holder and the Court acting under Section 238 of the then Code of Civil Procedure, called upon the decree-holder to supply, on or before the 20th July following, a certified extract from the Collector's record. As the decree-holder was unable to furnish the requisite copy within the time prescribed, he made this application of the 29th July upon which the present appeal turns. This application was for an extension of time within which to produce the extract from the Collector's record; and it was granted by the Court.2. Since the learned District Judge delivered his judgment in the matter, a somewhat similar case has been decided by this Benc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »