Mumbai Court February 1913 Judgments
Burjorji Dhunjibhai Contractor Vs. Jamshed K. Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom288; (1913)15BOMLR405; 20Ind.Cas.469
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree for specific performance passed by Mr. Justice Macleod at the instance of a purchaser of immoveable property.2. The contract for sale was made on the 8th of July 1911 in the Gujarati language. The subject-matter was certain land situate at Kelva-JMahim belonging, to the defendant -which had been taken from Government on lease for 999 years under what are known as the Gujarat Rules, the lease commencing from the 1st of August 1890. The purchase-money was fixed at Rs. 81,000 which by the agreement now under consideration was to, be paid as to Rs. 80,500 at the time of signing the document of sale and as to the balance on the transfer of the land after registration. The provision as to the payment of the consideration-money appears to have been varied by another agreement of even date under which in lieu of Rs. 30,000 part of the consideration the defendant agreed to take a property belonging to the plaintiff situate at Parbhadevi i...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Vishram Surve and anr. Vs. Sadashiv Balshet Lodha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom480
Heaton, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for redemption. In the first Court an issue was raised as to whether any of the plaintiffs were agriculturists. It was found that plaintiff No. 2 was an agriculturist. But no decree was drawn up in accordance with that preliminary finding. The trial proceeded as a trial under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act and a decree was made for redemption.2. Thereupon one of the defendants appealed to the District Court, taking amongst other grounds that it was wrong to hold that plaintiff No. 2 was an agriculturist. An issue on the point was framed by the Court of appeal. It was found that plaintiff No. 2 was not an agriculturist.3. He now comes in second appeal to this Court and urges that the Court of first appeal was wrong in going into this preliminary point at all. He bases his contention largely on the case of Govind Ramchandra v. Vithal Gopal. (1912) 36 Bom, 536.4. The application of the law on the question of appeals ag...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Ram Goenka Vs. Nand Kumar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR500
Atkinson, J.1. Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the Order of the 23rd of March 1900 was final and conclusive, and that, so far as the Commissioner was concerned, he had no power to review that Order in the way in which he has reviewed it. That is the only point in the case. They will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed.2. The appellant must pay the costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lalji Vs. Tikait Sri Gordhan Lalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR606
Ameer Ali, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to the Shebaitship of a Hindu temple belonging to the Bullavacharya Gossains situated at a place called Jatipura in the Muttra District of the United Provinces of India.2. The Bullavacharya cult, in reality an offshoot of Vaishnavism, was founded in the 16th century of the Christian Era by one Bullav Acharya who is usually designated among his followers and disciples as Maha Parbhu ji. He and his descendants, who constitute the Bullavacharya Gossain Kul, are held in great veneration by the members of the sect and regarded as the incarnation of the famous and favour Hindu deity Krishna, whom in common with other Vaishnaus (Vishnuvites) they worship. The cult established by Bullavacharya differed in the several particulars from the practices in vogue among other votaries of Krishna, the principal point of difference consisting in the fact that he repudiated the practice of celibacy and asceticism practised by the other Gossains.3. The Bull...
Tag this Judgment!Nursey Virji Vs. Alfred H. Harrison
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR781
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by certain respondents to have the appeal, filed by the appellant, dismissed for want of prosecution on the ground that he has not complied with Rule 739 in filing two copies of the paper-book in the Prothonotary's-office two days before the day fixed for the hearing. There is no doubt that the appellant is in default in this matter, but the book is now ready and the only omissions in it are said to be of certain documents, which are on the records of the Court of the nature of written statement, orders and decrees, which can be referred to without any difficulty in the Court if necessary. We, there more, think that it would be too harsh an order to make to dismiss the appeal, and that the justice of the case will be satisfied by ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the motion.2. The other question relates to the position of the cross-objecting respondent. It appears that the cross-objection is not directed against the appellant at ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR217
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question before the Court is whether any legal practitioner save counsel has aright of audience before the N 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 alisha 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 Insolvent Act(n & 12 Vic. c. 21), it was enacted that every advocate and attorney of the Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›