Mumbai Court January 1913 Judgments
Shankar Vishvanath Wagh Vs. Umabai Sadashiv Wagle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR320; 19Ind.Cas.736
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The defendants are judgment-creditors of Sadashiv Nilkanth, the deceased husband of the plaintiff. In execution of their decree they attached a policy of insurance effected by the deceased upon his own life. The policy was expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, and the plaintiff therefore applied to raise the attachment. Her application being, rejected she filed this suit for a declaration that the policy is not liable to attachment in execution of the defendants' decree.2. The policy is attachable if it falls within the description contained in Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code as 'a security for money or other saleable property belonging to the judgment-debtor over which he had a disposing power which he might exercise for his own benefit'. The policy is a contract between the deceased and the Insurance Company expressed to be for the benefit of the wife of the assured whereby the Company promise on proof of the death of the assured to pay the poli...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Ayyaji Desai Vs. Gururao Raghavendra Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR362; 19Ind.Cas.882
Heaton, J.1. The first question which was raised in this appeal was that no appeal lay because it was, it is urged, an appeal against a decree and such appeal is barred by class. (2) of Section 21 of the second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. But we think that the proceedings, and the Judge's order, and the Memorandum of Appeal, make it quite clear that the appeal is not against a decree but is against the order directing that the award be filed.' And that is an appeal which is specifically allowed by class. (f) of Section 104 of the Code. There is therefore nothing in that question which was raised as a preliminary point by the respondent. Three separate objections have been taken by the appellant.2. The first is that the award is so indefinite as to be incapable of execution. This objection can be taken under Section 14 of the second Schedule. A careful reading of the award itself discloses that the objection to it, if any, is rather that it is too definite and not indefinite. ...
Tag this Judgment!Aishabai Vs. Essaji Tajbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom274; (1913)15BOMLR392; 19Ind.Cas.934
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Davar J. 'whereby he set aside an award upon motion of the respondent on the ground of misconduct on the part of the umpire named in an order of reference.2. The reference was made in a suit filed by the appellant against the respondent to recover the amounts alleged to be. due on a mortgage and two deeds of further change.3. In the plaint an adjustment of account, dated the 31st of August 1910, was alleged from which it appeared that the sum of Rs. 5,71,770-2-0 was found to be due to the plaintiff which sum had been slightly reduced by payments made by the defendant prior to the date of suit, namely, the nth of October 1910.4. The defendant by his written statement pleaded that his signature to the said adjustment was obtained by fraud and that accounts should be taken.5. On the 16th of March 1911 a consent order was obtained whereby the suit and all matters in dispute therein were referred to the determination of two arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Nadirshaw Hormusji Sukhia Vs. Pirojshaw Ratanji Ratnagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR130; 19Ind.Cas.98
Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal - arises, was an action for damages for libel instituted by the appellant Nadirshaw Sukhia, a veterinary surgeon, against the three defendants, the first of whom, Phiroz Ruttonji Ratnagar was a frequent contributor to the columns of a daily newspaper called the Jam-e-Jamshed, published in Gujarati in Bombay, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are its proprietor and editor and printer and publisher, respectively. All the parties belong to the Parsi Zoroastrian community. The libel complained of is contained in a letter written by the first defendant and publish, ed in the Jam-e-Jamshed of the 26th of January 1911. That libel was charged as containing two distinct imputations on the character of the appellant, first, that he had obtained the privilege of being called on to move or second propositions at the meetings of the Parsi Anjuman by sending to the trustees of the Parsi Panchayet, who convened those meetings, threats that if he were...
Tag this Judgment!Jehangir Muncherji Lali Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR252
Davar, J.1. The plaintiff, Jehangir Muncherji Lali, a share and stock-broker, in the afternoon of the 4th of November 1911, purchased a second class ticket for Udwada at the Church Gate station and got into one of the defendants' trains, known as the Surat Excursion Train, which left that station at about 2-30 P. M. on that day. He formed one of a party of seven who were proceeding to Udwada for religious purposes. He got into one of the second class compartments of carriage No. 3078 and took a corner seat in that compartment with his back to the engine on the side away from the platform and next to the window opening on the side where parallel rails run and are used by trains coming up to Bombay. His train proceeded as far as the Andheri station and while it was passing that station at a fair speed, his left arm which, in his plaint he states, was out of the open window projecting not more than four inches, was injured and fractured by an open door of a stationary train on the up line...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom464
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question before the Court is whether any legal practitioner save counsel has a right of audience before the officer appointed by the Chief Justice to exercise powers under Section 6 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The officer so appointed is the Clerk of the Court, and he has been appointed inter alia to hold the public examination of insolvents and to examine any person summoned by the Court under Section 36.2. It is provided by Section 121 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act that nothing contained therein shall take away or affect any right of audience that any person may have had immediately before the commencement of the Act, or shall be deemed to confer such right in insolvency matters on any person who had not a right of audience before the Courts for the relief of insolvent debtors.3. By Section 3 of the Indian Insolvency Act (11 and 12 Vict., c. 21), it was enacted that every advocate and attorney of the Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hiralal Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR331; 20Ind.Cas.143
Beaman, J.1. We think that the convictions and sentences must be set aside. Waiving for a moment the question whether the other on which gambling was said to be going on was a public place, and admitting for the sake of this argument that it was, the conviction becomes all the worse. The sole ground upon which the Magistrate has found these four accused guilty is that they were present or near gamblers gambling in a public place, and from that he inferred that they must themselves have been gambling. This inference is entirely unsound, and was drawn no doubt by the Magistrate owing to a subconscious importation of the presumption mentioned in a. 5. But the reason underlying that presumption has no applicability at all to cases under Section 12. It ought to be obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to reflect that in the case of a gaming-house, which is not a public place, those who deliberately go to rooms set apart for a particular purpose may very rightly be presumed to have gone th...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Lingo Desai Vs. Dattu Gopal Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR366
Beaman, J.1. Plaintiff owned a one-third share of an equity of redemption. He brought a suit to redeem one-third of the mortgaged property from the four surviving joint mortgagees. The litigation has, up to the hearing of this appeal, passed through the hands of one or more Subordinate Judges, three District Judges and three Judges of the High Court. But at no time did the form of the suit excite any comment or give rise to any objection. I must therefore take it that this is a normal feature of the law of mortgage in the mofussil.2. Omitting mention of the earlier stages through which the redemption suit passed, it is sufficient to say that on the 7th January 1902 the District Judge dismissed the suit. Plaintiff appealed to the High Court. On the 10th January 1902 the four joint mortgagees effected a partition inter se, and the property, the subject-matter of the suit, fell to the share of the defendant 1, Gopal. On the 15th January 1902 Gopal died, leaving him surviving a widow, the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shankar Sadashiv Katre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR329; 20Ind.Cas.224
Beaman, J.1. In our opinion the language of. 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code is plain enough. We think under that section that a Magistrate is restricted to inquiring into disputed rights of the use of ' land and water ', including easements etc., over the same as expressly stated in the section. We cannot read into those words any more than they naturally contain, and we cannot hold that a 'privy' is either 'land' or 'water' or that the use of it is an easement over the same. We think, therefore, that the Magistrate was in error in adopting the course he did. It is a very natural error considering that the complainant sought three reliefs, two of which could properly have been granted under the section. It is a very open question whether the third relief might not have been granted under Section 145, although the policy underlying this part of the law might supply objections to that course. However that may be, after thus expressing our opinion upon the state of the law, we think t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhvacharya Ramchandracharya Vs. Shridhar Narasinha Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR357; 19Ind.Cas.876
Beaman, J.1. Adopting the view most favourable to the plaintiffs that the land in suit originally belonged to the temple and was granted by the temple to the ancestors of the defendants hereditarily for the performance of the vritti of reciting Purans in the temple, we should still be of opinion that no case has been made out for removing the defendants and restoring the lands to the temple. In fairness to the defendants it ought, however, to be said that in our opinion there is very little evidence, and that not of the best quality, to support either of the propositions assumed in the last pre' motive and condition of the former. Where the fact is so, the law is well established that on failure or refusal to perform the duty the interest in the land is resumable.2. In respect of grants burdened with service resumable for failure or refusal to perform that service the Court would ordinarily require very strong and conclusive evidence before disturbing the practice which has persisted f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›