Mumbai Court April 1913 Judgments
Raja Debi Bakhsh Singh Vs. Habib Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR640
Shaw, J.1. The appellant's father, Raja Muneshar Bakhsh Singh, instituted a suit against the respondent for payment of a sum amounting to Rs. 15,908. The plaint was filed on the 3rd May 1911, in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner of Bahraich. The respondent filed his written statement on the 31st May 1911. On the 4th July the following occurred before the Deputy Commissioner :-' On the case being called to-day the plaintiff was not present. I therefore dismiss the claim. Costs upon plaintiff.'2. The fact, unknown to the Deputy Commissioner, was that the plaintiff was dead. He had died about a fortnight before, namely, on the 21st June. It is plain to their Lordships that, upon this being pointed out, it was the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to rectify the situation. This duty Mr. Clarke, the Deputy Commissioner, seems fully to have recognised. It requires no words of their Lordships to show the inapplicability of Rules or Orders dealing with the case of the non-appearance of a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadar Ibrahim Vs. Dulanbibl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR672; 20Ind.Cas.530
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhiwandi for restitution of conjugal rights against the defendant and for an injunction restraining her from marrying any other person pending the disposal of the suit. He was met with the plea that the questions at issue in the suit were rest judicata by reason of a decree passed by Mr. Justice Davar in High Court Suit No. 399 of 1908 and that therefore under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Bhiwandi suit could not be tried. The High Court suit of 1908 was for a declaration that the defendant was the duly married wife of the plaintiff and for an injunction restraining a marriage alleged to be contemplated between her and one Abdul Gafur a defendant in the High Court suit. Three of the issues in that suit were as follows :-(a) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as against the first defendant? (b) Whether the first defendant did not become a member of the Hanaf se...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadir Valad Ibrahim Chivane Vs. Doolanbibi Wife of Abdul Kadir C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom563
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. [It was not such a strong case as when the Court has no jurisdiction at all.]2. We further contend that as this is a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and as both parties reside outside Bombay, there was an entire absence of jurisdiction. The granting of the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not a mere matter of form. It is not that whenever a part of the cause of action arises in Bombay and the leave is applied for that the leave is or must be granted. The granting of the leave is the foundation of the jurisdiction: Rampurtab Samruthroy v. Premsukh Chandamal (1890) 15 Bom. 93, Hadjee Ismail Hadjee Hubbeeb v. Hadjee Mahomed Hadjee Joosub (1874) 13 BeM. L.R. 91.3. We contend that there can be no res judicata unless a case is finally decided and a case cannot be held to be finally decided if the Court had no jurisdiction to decide it.4. Captain with M.M. Karbhari, for the respondent (defendant):A part of the cause of action having accrued in Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesha Row Vs. Tuljaram Row
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR626
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras, dated the 28th of September 1909, which, affirming a decree made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction on the 2nd of September 1908, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.2. The facts which have given rise to the present action relate back to the year 1886. The defendants Tuljaram and Rajaram are two brothers, being the sons of one Venkata Row, who died in 1871. Tuljaram and Rajaram, with two other sons of Venkata Row named respectively Rama Chandra Row, since deceased, and Luchmana Row, formed a joint undivided Hindu family. In 1881 there was a dissolution of the joint family and a partial division of the family property. A large proportion of the assets was, however, left undivided in the hands and under the control of Tuljaram, the first defendant, who seems to have been the managing member of the family in respect at least of the business or businesses in Madras.3. In 1886 a suit was brou...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabsingh Vs. Raja Seth Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR613
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 7th May 1907, of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces which affirmed with slight modifications a decree, dated the 4th April 1906, of the District Judge of Hoshangabad.2. The suit in which the appeal arose was brought on the 22nd September 1904 in the Court of the District Judge of Hoshangabad by mortgagees upon a mortgage of immovable property which was made on the 10th December 1891 by the Deputy Commissioner of the district of Hoshangabad as and being the Court of Wards for that district. The suit was one for possession of the mortgaged property including the sir lands, or alternatively for a decree for sale. Certain other alternative reliefs were claimed.3. The defences to the suit, so far as they are now material, were that the mortgage had, it was alleged, been made by the Deputy Commissioner without the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner and was void; that the property mortgaged was the undivided a...
Tag this Judgment!Murgeppa Madiwallappa Vs. Basawantrao Khalilapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR557; 20Ind.Cas.252
Batchelor, J.1. This is a second appeal brought in execution proceedings, and the only question involved is the question of limitation. Admittedly the judgment-creditor's present application for execution is prima facie barred. He seeks, however, to support it by deducting the time which was occupied by him in getting from the Court a succession certificate to the original judgment creditor, and if that time is allowed to be deducted, then admittedly the application is within time. The whole question, therefore, is whether the deduction should or should not be allowed. The answer to the question depends upon the construction to be placed on Article 182, Clause 5, to the first Schedule of the Limitation Act. That clause gives a period of three years from the date of applying in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step in aid of execution of the decree.2. It is to be noted, in the first place, that the step in aid of execution is to be taken not by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Naranbhai Bhulabhal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR578; 20Ind.Cas.601
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicant was the Police Patel of a village and has been convicted by the Sessions Judge on appeal under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judge having set aside certain other convictions which had been recorded against the applicant by the trying Magistrate.2. The facts underlying the application are these. A com. plaint was brought to the applicant in his capacity of Police Patel that an attempt had been made to commit rape on a girl. The applicant made some investigation and prepared a panchanama of the scene of the offence and arrested the two persons against whom the accusation was laid. He sent them with a report to the police station, but on the way the parties) with a view presumably to save the girl's reputation, came to a settlement and all returned to the village. The relatives of the girl, who were responsible for lodging the proceedings, informed the Patel that they had no desire to continue them and t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Fulchand Bapuji Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR580; 20Ind.Cas.608
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicant was the keeper of a certain printing press at Nadiad in Kaira, and in respect of that press he had made the declaration required by the statute. In consequence of certain objectionable matter which had appeared in the press, the Government of Bombay, on the 13th September 1912, issued to the applicant a notice, Ext. 3, calling upon him under Section 1-3, sub-section 2, of the Indian Press Act 1910 to deposit with the District Magistrate security to the amount of Rs. 3,000 in money or an equivalent thereof in securities of the Government of India. This notice was, on the 26th September, made over to the Police for service on the applicant, and it was actually served on the applicant on the afternoon of the 28th September which was a Saturday. It is to be observed that Section 3, sub-section 2, of the statute makes no provision for the specification of any time within which the deposit required has to be made, and the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mansing Daji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR568; 20Ind.Cas.593
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against certain orders of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge of Khandesh in a case in which two accused persons, Mansing Daji and Jalalsing Daji, had been charged with an attempt to commit the offence of cheating. They were both convicted by the learned Magistrate, but these convictions were reversed on appeal to the Sessions Judge.2. Briefly the accusation against the two appellants was this : That having contracted with Ralli Brothers to deliver a certain quantity of good cotton, they delivered instead for acceptance by Rallis 30 dokras of bad cotton, i. e., cotton heavily adulterated with rubbish, and adulterated in such a manner that the fraud would be likely to escape the usual inspection which is had on such occasions. According to the evidence this attempt to cheat stopped at an attempt only because Ralli's agent, to whom delivery was offered, suspected the character of the goods and declined to accept them. The...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Apaya Tatoba Munde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR574; 20Ind.Cas.747
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision and the facts which underlie it are these. The present applicant brought before the police a charge of theft against one Khanya, alleging that this Khanya had stolen a sheep and a goat belonging to the applicant. Khanya was sent for trial before a Magistrate but the Magistrate discharged him, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. When, however, an application was made to that Magistrate that the present applicant should compensate Khanya for having made a frivolous or vexatious charge against him, the Magistrate declined to accede to this application, holding that there was nothing to satisfy him that the applicant's complaint, even though he had failed to substantiate it by evidence, was made, mala fide or was frivolous or vexatious. 2. Subsequently proceedings were taken against the present applicant and he has now been convicted under Section 182 of the Penal Code.3. The first point taken by the learn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›