Mumbai Court October 1912 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.
Miss M.J. D'silva Vs. Miss D.J.S. Minizis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1207; 17Ind.Cas.972
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Accepting the view of the District Judge stated in his judgment of the 7th of October 1911 in support of his order returning the plaint for presentation to the Subordinate Judge's Court, we take it that the second defendant was appointed Court of Wards under Section 3(c) of Bombay Act I of 1905.2. The question is whether he is sued as an Officer of Government in his official capacity.3. Section 3 of the Court of Wards Act of 1905 enables the Governor in Council to appoint certain Officers to be a Court of Wards for any part of the Presidency. The power of the Governor in Council is confined to the appointment of Officers and, therefore, it is only as an Officer of Government that the second defendant is a Court of Wards, We think, therefore, that he is an Officer of Government sued in his official capacity and that, therefore, under Section 32 of Act XIV of 1869, the Subordinate Judge's Court cannot entertain the suit.4. We, therefore, affirm the order of the S...
R.D. Sethna Vs. Kallianji Sangjibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR113; 12Ind.Cas.581
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit by the Official Assignee to recover from the defendant No. i the sum of Rs. 8300 paid to him on the 27th of March 1908 by Ramji Monsey on behalf of the insolvent firm of Laxman Rekhuji on the ground of fraudulentpreference.2. The material facts, none of which I think are disputed, are that on the 27th of March 1908 Rainji Monsey, the manager of the firm of Laxman Rekhuji, drew certain Hindies on the Mandvi branch of the defendant No. 1's firm, sold them in the Bazaar and realised Rs. 7200. Adding to this sum of Rs. 1100 from the small cash balance he then had, Ramji Monsey paid Rs. 8300 to the defendant No. i sometime in the afternoon of the 27th of March. By the evening of the 28th of March the firm was known generally in the Bazaar to be, if not actually insolvent, on the very brink of insolvency. On the 2pth all the creditors appear to have come down upon the firm and as they could not be satisfied it may be said that the firm stopped payment on that day....
In Re: Dnyanoba Pandurang Bamne
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR57
Batchelor, J.1. We think that owing to the material irregularities which have occurred in the conduct of these proceedings we must make the rule absolute and discharge the order made by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 22nd December 1911. That order, as we read it, is based upon the report made by the Mamlatdar and Second Class Magistrate apparently in November 1911. Now this report of the Second Class Magistrate shows, we think, that he misapprehended his legal authority under Section 133 and following of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under those sections what the inquiring Magistrate has to consider is whether there is or is not a bona fide private claim to title. If he finds that there is such a bona fide claim then under the rulings of the Courts he is debarred from proceeding further: see In re Mahay and Shri Jaswatsangji ILR (1897)22 Bom. 988; In re Narayan Jivan Mestri (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 687; and Emperor v. Dost Muhammad ILR (1905) All. 98. If the Magistrate is of opinion tha...
Premraj Motiram Marwadi Vs. Javarmal Gomaji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR41
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the suit, and was the purchaser of the property in suit at a Court sale held at the instance of the decree-holder, the fifth defendant. The original owner of the property was one Vithu Shivram. After his death a claim to his property was made by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as being beneficiaries under Vithu's will. Now the defendant No. 5 was a creditor of Vithu, and in 1902 after Vithu's death he brought a suit against defendants 1 to 4 as representing Vithu's estate for the recovery of the moneys due to him by that estate. He obtained a decree and thereafter had this property attached and put to sale.2. In March 1905 at the auction sale the appellant purchased the property. On the 3rd of July 1905 the sale was confirmed, and under the sale-certificate the appellant applied for possession. In his attempt to obtain possession, however, he was obstructed by the sixth defendant who claimed to be the heir of Vithu. The appellant ...
Premraj Motiram Marwadi Vs. Javarmal Gomaji Marwadi and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.381
1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the suit, and was the purchaser of the property in suit at a Court sale held at the instance of the decree-holder, the fifth defendant. The original owner of the property was one Vithu Shivram. After his death, a claim to his property was made by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as being beneficiaries under Vithu's Will. Now the defendant No. 5 was a creditor of Vithu, and in 1902 after Vithu's death, he brought a suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as representing Vithu's estate for the recovery of the moneys due to him by that estate. He obtained a decree and thereafter had this property attached and put to sale.2. In March 1905 at the auction-sale, the appellant purchased the property. On the 3rd of July 1905, the sale was confirmed, and under the sale-certificate, the appellant applied for possession. In his attempt to obtain possession, however, he was obstructed by the sixth defendant who claimed to be the heir of Vithu. The appellant made...
Jagu Babaji Varang Vs. Balu Laxman Varang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1198; 17Ind.Cas.955
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to obtain by partition his 1/84th share in the Khoti village of Savdav. Some of the defendants also prayed for a partition of their shares. The plaintiff and the defendants I to 78 belong to one family whose surname is Varang. The defendants 79 to 97 are members of another family named Desai. With the other defendants we are not now concerned. The present appellants were defendants 11 to 26, and are some of the Varang family. Of the various contentions raised by the present appellants in the Court below, the learned pleader Mr. Desai has selected a single contention as the basis of this appeal. That contention is that the Desai-defendants were not entitled in this suit to ask for a partition of any share in the village as belonging to them, because they had filed a previous suit for partition in 1854 and in that suit had been awarded a one-half share in the village. This position was taken by the appellant-defendants in both the Courts be...
Manohar Ramchandra Hinge Vs. the Collector of Nasik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1190; 17Ind.Cas.964
Batchelor, J.1. A suit was filed by the Collector of Nasik, representing the Court of Wards, and on behalf of a certain ward, for redemption of certain lands under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Preliminary issues were framed as to whether the plaintiff, the ward, was an, agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act; and whether he was otherwise entitled to the benefit of that Act. These issues were determined in the plaintiff's favour by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge. The defendant appealed to this Court contending that it should have been held that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist. We, however, were of opinion, that the learned Judge below was right, and we affirmed his finding that the plaintiff is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act.2. The question now involved is as to the basis upon which pleader's fees should be calculated in the defendant's appeal. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the plaintiff has c...
The Special Officer, Salsette Blg. Sites Vs. Dosabhai Bezonji Motivala ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1194
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon : (1912)14BOMLR833 . Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, how...
The Special Officer Salsette Building Sites Vs. Dossabhai Bezonji Moti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom506
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon 1912 40 Cal 21. Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, however, to es...
The Special Officer, Salseite Building Sites Vs. Dosabhai Bezonji Moti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.952
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon 14 Bom. L.R. 833 : 16 C.W.N. 961 : 12 M.L.T. 195 : (1912) M.W.N. 781 : 16 Cri.L.J. 245 : 22 M.L.J. 276 : 10 A.L.J. 271 : 5 Bur. L.T. 205 207 : 16 Ind. Cas. 188. Prima facie, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »