Mumbai Court June 1912 Judgments
Haridas Nanabhal Vs. Vithaldas Kisandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR765
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Acting C.J.1. We are of opinion that the application for time, which was made by the appellant after he had given the darkhast of November 1906, to enable him to procure copies of the decree and judgment, was a step-in-aid of execution. We agree with the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kunhi Mannan v. Seshagiri Bhakthan ILR (1882) Mad. 141 and dissent from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Kartick Nath Pandey v. Juggernath Ram Marwari ILR (1899) Mad. 285.2. The decree is, therefore, reversed and the darkhast sent back to be disposed of according to law on the merits. Costs hitherto incurred will be costs in the darkhast....
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Nanabhai Vs. Vithaldas Kisandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.30
1. We are of opinion that the application for time, which was made by the appellant after he had given the darkhast of November 1906, to enable him to procure copies of the decree and judgment, was a step-in-aid of execution. We agree with the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kunhi Mannan v. Seshagiri Bhakthan 5 M. 141 and dissent from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Kartick Nath Pandey v. Juggernath Ram Marwari 27 C. 285.2. The decree is, therefore, reversed and the darkhast sent back to be disposed of according to law on the merits.3. Costs hitherto incurred will be costs in the darkhast....
Tag this Judgment!Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav Vs. Rachappa Subrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR757
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which had been brought by the present appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Belgaum, for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Venkatrao deceased, and that as such he was entitled to his property.2. The plaint was valued at Rs. 130 for a declaration of the fight, and at Rs. 69,016-9-0 for pleaders' fees. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that a house forming part of the subject, matter of the suit was in the possession of the plaintiff himself and that the defendant was obstructing him. He prayed for an injunction to issue restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's rights in respect of that house. The injunction was valued at Rs. 5. The plaintiff further alleged that the rest of the property, belonging to the deceased Venkatrao and valued at Rs. 69,016-9-0, was in the possession of the Collector, having been attached by him after the death of Venkatrao....
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Goolam Ariff Vs. Ebrahim Goolam Ariff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1211
Macnaghten, J.1. The Record in this case is more than ordinarily confused and the story is somewhat complicated. But for the purpose of this appeal the material facts may be stated in a few sentences.2. One, Hadjee Goolam Ariff, a wealthy Mahomedan merchant residing at Rangoon, being dissatisfied with the conduct of his two elder sons was minded to dispose of the bulk of his property for the benefit of his two junior wives and his five younger children, who were all minors at the time. With this object he applied for and obtained five separate orders under the Act of 1890 for the appointment of one and the same person as guardian of each of his minor children in order that the children by their guardian might accept the benefits which he intended to confer upon them. Being also desirous that his property should remain in one mass, intact and undistributed, he procured the registration of a Limited Company called the Goolam Ariff Estate Company, Limited. To this Company in return for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Eknath Pandoba Kosti Vs. Dagduram Sambhuram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR750; 17Ind.Cas.87
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J. 1. It is contended in support of this Second Appeal that the presence of the mortgagor as a party-defendant was not necessary and that therefore the conciliator's certificate does not avail the plaintiffs to bring the suit within the period of limitation under Article 11 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act.2. This point is urged on the following facts: Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the present appellants, obtained a decree upon their mortgage against their mortgagor, defendant No. 3. The present plaintiffs were not parties to that suit. Having obtained a decree upon the mortgage the said defendants sought to sell the property in satisfaction of their decree. Thereupon the plaintiffs intervened, claiming a lien upon the property in virtue of a mortgage in their favour subsequent to the mortgage of defendants 1 and 2. In the miscellaneous proceedings in which they intervened, the Court held their mortgage not proved and their application that the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Hasanalli Moledina Vs. Popatlal Parbhudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR782; 17Ind.Cas.17
Beaman, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover a deposit of Rs. 9000 from the estate of the deceased Karmali Moledina and a legacy of equal amount given to him by clause 8 of the will. The suit was brought against the executors, who resisted the plaintiff's claim on two main grounds : (1) availing themselves of the old and as far as this country is concerned exploded doctrine of satisfaction that the legacy in the will was no more than a payment of the deposit or debt and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have both the debt and the legacy; (2) that inasmuch as the executors had not given their assent to the legacy, the plaintiff could not sue them directly as upon a complete title for that amount, nor as a creditor of the estate could he sue the executors without asking for an administration of the whole estate.2. In order to avoid as much as possible unnecessary difficulties arising out of technical defences of that kind, the plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint...
Tag this Judgment!The Goverment Pleader Vs. Bhagubhai Dayabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.788
ORDER1. We have heard this application by the Pleader Mr. Bhagubhai, who petitions the Court that as he has now made the apology, which by our previous order he was directed to make, the Court should restore to him his sanad as a Pleader.2. We observe that in the apologies, which Mr. Bhagubhai has seen fit to submit in deference to our order, he has taken care to insert words apparently of justification to the effect that the insulting statements used by him towards the Judicial Officer whom he maligned were used in 'excitement and on the spur of the moment.'3. The record of the case shows that these words are not true and that, so far from the insulting statements having been once uttered in an exess of excitement or under a sudden impulse, the fact is that they were repeated on diverse occasions after Mr. Bhagubhai's attention had been drawn to them, and indeed after he had once expressed regret for them. Even now, Mr. Bhagubhai's main contention before us has been that the insulting...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: G. Krishnasami Aiyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1079
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The order is dated the 28th February 1912. Under that order the appellant, who was a vakil of the Court, was suspended from practice for six months on the ground of professional misconduct.2. The circumstances of the case have been resumed in a very careful judgment by the learned Judges of the Court below. . Their Lordships only review them further for the purpose of illustrating the one point which appears to them to be conclusive of the present appeal.3. In the year 1907 the present appellant, the vakil, was employed to file a second appeal in the High Court against a decree of the District Court of South Arcot. The condition of matters with regard to a vakil, and his relation to the procedure of the Court, which bears upon this case, are set out in Section 95 of the Appellate Side Rules of Madras. By that section pleaders ' are responsible to the Registrar for all translation and printing charg...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Karvirappa A. Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR587
Narayan G. Chandravakar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The petition before us has been argued at length and with considerable force by Mr. Robert-son and we have had all the assistance that was necessary to enable us to arrive at a satisfactory decision. The application is made under the following circumstances. In a criminal trial it was deposed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharwar, that the present petitioner who is a pleader in that district and who appeared for the defence in that case had been at Naiknur on the 20th of July. The pleader went into the witness-box and deposed on the other hand that he was not present at Naiknur on that date. It is not necessary to what the result of that criminal trial was, but the Government Pleader at Dharwar applied subsequently for sanction under 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the pleader for the offence of perjury in that he had made the statement that he had not been at Naiknur on the 20th of July deliberately knowing it to be...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Gulab Vs. Thakorlal Pranjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR748; 17Ind.Cas.86
Narayan Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The question in this appeal, is whether a Hindu minor is competent to make a will. The right of a Hindu to make a will is based upon the principle that he is competent to make a disposition of his property to take effect after his death to the same extent to which he can make a disposition of it in his own life-time as a gift. It is clear law that a Hindu minor cannot make a gift of his property in his life-time. If that is so, it follows that he cannot make a will in respect of that property.2. But it is argued in the present case that though the testatrix, V having been under eighteen years of age, was a minor according to the Indian Majority Act, she was more than fourteen years' old and that, therefore, under the Hindu law she was not a minor. On that ground we are asked to hold that, according to that law, she was competent to make a will. But the Indian Majority Act has modified the Hindu law on the question of minority except in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »