Mumbai Court March 1912 Judgments
Dossabhai Bejanji Motivala Vs. the Special Officer, Salsette Building ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR36Bom599
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, and the question really to be decided is whether after the Collector under the Act has made the enquiry prescribed by the Act, and has retched his own conclusion as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, that conclusion can be set aside by the Government, and Government can direct the Collector to substitute a smaller amount than that which, as the result of his enquiry, he had determined to offer. In my opinion the question must be answered in the negative.2. It arises in the following state of facts. Some 1,738 acres of Khajan land were decided to be acquired under the Act. The present appellant before us is concerned with 1,318 of those acres, the balance belonging to another claimant, who has preferred a similar appeal.3. The Resolution of Government directing the publication of the notification for the acquisition of this land is numbered 12104, and is dated the 22nd December 1906. By that Reso...
Tag this Judgment!Dosabhai Bezanji Motivala Vs. the Special Officer, Salsette Building S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.549
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, and the question really to be decided is whether after the Collector under the Act has made the inquiry prescribed by the Act, and has reached his own conclusion as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, that conclusion can be set aside by the Government, and Government can direct the Collector to substitute a smaller amount than that which, as the result of his inquiry, he had determined to offer. In my opinion, the question must be answered in the negative.2. It arises in the following state of facts. Some 1798 acres of Khajan land were decided to be acquired under the Act. The present appellant before us is concerned with 1318 of those acres, the balance belonging to another claimant who, has preferred a similar appeal.3. The Resolution of Government directing the publication of the Notification for the acquisition of this land is numbered 12104, and is dated the 22nd December 1906. By that Resol...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Laxman Wagle Vs. Govind Parashram Wagle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR733
Batchelor, J.1. The relation of the parties concerned in this appeal is shown in the following genealogical tree:-Farasbram.----------------------------------| | |Govind Vinayak Laxman(Plff.) (Deft. No. 1). || |------------------ ------------------------------------| | | | | |Sakubai Shantabai Deft. 2. Deft-3. Deft. 4. Deft. 5.2. Plaintiff sued for partition alleging that he was entitled to a one-third share, and that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and Laxman were in union. Various defences were raised, including the defence that the property in suit was not joint property but had been separately acquired.3. The Subordinate Judge in the Court of trial gave the plaintiff a one-third share in a certain portion of the properties. On appeal the District Court has allowed the plaintiff partition in all the immoveable properties, awarding him the third share which was claimed.4. The present appeal is brought by the defendants, and the first point taken on their behalf by their learned ple...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kassim Isub Sab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR365
ORDER1. Applying the principle of Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court reverses the conviction and sentence and directs the fine, if paid, to be refunded. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chhotalal Babar (No. 2.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR367
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. Dealing with the appeal of Ambalal Jethalal, who was accused No. 2 in the Sessions Trial, we cannot agree with the the learned Sessions Judge in the conclusion at which he has arrived, namely, that he is guilty, and the reasons that he has given for that conclusion.2. The evidence as against the appellant rests solely upon the evidence of Somnath, the pardoned approver. His being the for evidence of an accomplice there must be corroboration in the material particulars by means of independent testimony before the conviction can be sustained. Such corroboration there is absolutely none in the present case. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have thought that there was corroboration afforded by the position, connection and general conduct of accused No. 2, the appellant before us. The learned Judge is right so far as a matter of law, that the degree of 'amount of corroboration required depends upon the facts of each case. But when he goes on to observe that in a c...
Tag this Judgment!Magniram Vithuram Marwadi Vs. Bakubai Rakhma Lohar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR598
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case are concisely stated by the District Judge. The plaintiff was a creditor of the family of the defendants. The plaintiff's separated brother was also a creditor. The plaintiff's brother attached the family lands. The matter went in execution to the Collector. The Collector leased the family lands to one Piraji. The plaintiff and the defendants came to an agreement by which the plaintiff agreed to remit his debt he being a mortgagee and to pay off his brother the judgment-creditor, and the defendants agreed to sell him one of the lands. The plaintiff then obtained possession of the family lands from which he was ejected by the defendants and he now sues to recover possession.2. The lower Court found that the defendant No. 1 executed the sale-deed in suit and that it was intended to convey the interests of the defendants by way of sale, that there was no fraud, that the sale was binding on the minor defendants, and...
Tag this Judgment!Jessiram Jagannath Vs. Tulsidas Damodhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR617
Beaman, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff sues for a certain sum of money alleged to be due to him as the result of dealings between himself and the defendant in silver. According to the plaintiffs case there were forward contracts between the parties for the Maha and Fagan vaidas of 1967, that is to say, February and March 1911. The defence is that there was a settlement between the parties and that nothing is now due to plaintiff; in the alternative that whether there was a settlement or not the transactions were in furtherance of wagering, and, therefore, unenforceable at law.2. In proof of the alleged settlement, there is nothing but the defendant's own word, supported by books of very questionable character. There is also a strange incident of a letter alleged to have been written and sent by the defendant in reply to the plaintiff's notice of demand. It is part of the plaintiff's argument that if there had really been such a settlement as the defendant now relies on, that would hav...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal Motilal Vs. Vasudeo Ganesh Mhashar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR634
Russell, J.1. With regard to the first question we have to decide, namely, the question upon whom lies the onus of proof in this case, it appears that the plaintiff's agreement to purchase the property in question from defendants 1 and 2 is dated 9th February 1906. The agreement of defendants 1 and 2 with defendants 3 and 4, who are the purchasers of the same property (Exhibit 65), is dated the 21st May 1906. The defendants 3 and 4, therefore, having contracted to purchase the property from the same defendants who had contracted to sell it previously to the plaintiff must show three things : that they are purchasers for value, and bona fide, and without notice: see Mulji Jetha & Co v. Macleod (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 991. The plaintiff under his contract has a prior equity. In Varden Seth Sam v. Luckpathy Royjee Lallah (1862) 9 M. I. A. 307, it was said :-The question to be considered is, whether the third and sixth defendants respectively possessed the land free from that lien, whatever its...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Sankalchand Vs. Jaffir Alli Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR581
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The word 'Asmani Sultani' has been construed by the learned District Judge as covering all acts of authority speaking in the name of the King and compelling a person to adopt a certain line of conduct independently of the will of that person. We cannot take that view. The phrase means, in our opinion, sortie act such as that of God or of the King's enemies which is in the nature of a calamity over I which no person can exercise any control. In the case of a litigation like this, it cannot be said that the litigants are subjected to anything like a calamity, because although these are liquidation proceedings, yet they can appear by counsel or pleaders, and satisfy the Court what proper decree the Court should pass having regard to the law. We find in the negative on the first issue and set aside the order rind direct that the proceedings be sent back to the District Judge to be disposed of according to law. 2. The appellant must have his costs of this appeal from...
Tag this Judgment!Velchand Chhaganlal Vs. Capt. S.R. Musson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR633
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The word 'assets' has been defined by Telang J. in Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji ILR (1891) 16 Bom. 91 as meaning ' all a man's property, of whatever kind, which may be used to satisfy debts or demands existing against him.' And that decision is quoted always as a leading case on the subject. Where the salary of a Government Officer is once attached under the Code of Civil Procedure, and then another attachment takes place, the party attaching subsequently is entitled to claim rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code, because the salary attached amounts to assets within the meaning of that section. That was the view taken by Telang J. in Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji which has been the established law of this Court and the principle laid down in which has been adopted by the Legislature in the explanation to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act V of 1908. There is no inconsistency between that explanation and the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »