Mumbai Court August 1913 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Nanji Samal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom237; (1913)15BOMLR999
Heaton, J.1. In this case the Magistrate, as appears quite plainly from Clause 2 of Section 83 of the Registration Act, could have tried the case himself but he committed it to the Court of Session. He did not however give any reason why he should commit it rather than try it himself. The law requires that reasons for commitment shall be recorded (see S. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code). In a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the Magistrate himself or by the Court of Session, I think that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the Court of Session. There has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law. This no doubt would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the Sessions. But where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregular...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji Hormusji Batlivala Vs. Jamshedji Merwanji Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom218; (1913)15BOMLR959
Batchelor, J.1. The suit which gives rise to this appeal was filed to obtain damages for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff, as a bare licensee, was being driven gratuitously by his friend, the defendant, in the defendant's motor car.2. The learned trial Judge, Macleod J., has found that the defendant is liable on the ground of negligence, and has awarded to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 38,000 as damages. The defendant now appeals from that decree.3. It will be convenient to use the word ' accident' in reference to the occurrence, but the word must be understood in its popular sense, and not as indicating any suggestion as to whether the occurrence was, or was not, avoidable. The . accident, then, occurred while the defendant was driving a 1 party of relatives and friends in his white steam car from Deolali to Igatpuri. On the way there is a level crossing over t the G. I. P. Railway and this crossing admittedly is such as needs some degree of care to pass in safety. Comin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ladhu Ramji Jessa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR996
Shah, J.1. The accused has been convicted in this case under Section 18 of the Indian Railways Acton the ground that he was a passenger at the time when he remained on the footboard of a railway carriage, even though warned to leave it, while the train was in motion.2. On a careful reading of Sections 68, 69, 113, 117,118, 120 and 122, I have come to the conclusion that the word ' passenger ' in Section 118 is used in a restricted sense of denoting a person who, without the permission of a railway servant, enters any carriage of a railway for the purpose of travelling therein as a passenger. On the facts found, I am unable to say that the accused in this case entered the carriage for any such purpose and that he was a passenger when he was on the foot-board. This being a penal section, I think, it should be construed strictly. It may be that persons other than passengers ought to be prohibited from resorting to this dangerous practice of being on the footboard while the train is in mot...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Ujam Vs. Bai Rukhmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom211(1); (1913)15BOMLR936
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder who obtained a decree against the present respondent, and made an application for executing it on the 6th of August 1908. That application was made against the defendant and the surety The present application was made on the 12th of August 1911. The judgment-debtor objected to the application on the ground of limitation. In both the lower Courts this plea has succeeded, and the Darkhast has been dismissed as being time-barred. In the second appeal before us it has been contended by the appellant that the application is in time on various grounds. It is not necessary to deal with all the grounds urged in support of the appeal, as it is possible to decide the, appeal on one ground only. It is an admitted fact in the case that the present defendant and the surety appealed against the order made by the Court of first instance on the 30th November 1908 directing execution to proceed as to a part of the decree, and in that appeal they obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Lang Vs. Heptullabhai Ismailjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom271; (1913)15BOMLR939
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Two questions have been argued in this appeal, first, whether the plaintiff was the assignee by way of mortgage of the insolvent's decree, and, secondly, whether this suit, instituted without the leave of the Court, is barred as falling under the general prohibition of suits without such leave contained in Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act or whether it is saved by the proviso that the section shall not affect the power of any secured creditor to realise or otherwise deal with his security in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realise or deal with it if this section had not been passed.2. On the first question there can be no doubt that the decision must be in the affirmative for the evidence is all one way and establishes the claim.3. The Official Assignee, having executed a decree which had been assigned to the plaintiff by way of security, is in the position of a mortgagor who has sold the mortgaged property and is in possessio...
Tag this Judgment!The Baroda Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. the Satyanarayan Marine a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom225(2); (1913)15BOMLR948
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. One of the conditions in the policy of fire Insurance sued on by the plaintiffs is that ' if the claim be made and rejected and an action or suit be not commenced within three months after such rejection all benefit under this policy shall be forfeited.'2. The claim on the defendants was rejected on the 20th of April 1911, but the suit was not commenced till the 14th of August 1911. Upon this ground the suit was dismissed in the lower Court. That such a condition is not unreasonable or opposed to public policy is conceded by the appellants' counsel and can hardly be disputed in view of the remarks of the Judicial Committee in Home Insurance Company of New York v. Victoria-Montreal Fire Insurance Company [1907] A.C. 59. But it is argued that the condition is void as an agreement of the nature described in Section 28 of the Contract Act since it limits the time within which a party to the contract may enforce his rights under the contract by the usual legal proce...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnadixit Baldixit Vs. Baldixit Wamandixit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom296; (1913)15BOMLR1016
Heaton, J.1. This is an appeal which was determined by the District Judge of Bijapur on an assumed condition of facts. The assumed facts were these: That the land in suit belonged to defendant No 2's family and that the members or a member of the plaintiff's family was an agent leasing the land out and taking rents and accounting for them to defendant No 2's family. It was further assumed that in the year 1887 this agent on behalf of defendant No. 2's family leased the land by a registered lease for eighteen years to one Ishvara; that Ishvara took possession under this lease and remained in possession until the term of the lease expired, or at least up to some time well within twelve years of the institution of this suit. Somewhere in 1893 or 1894, however, the agent and it his family asserted that they, and not defendant No. 2's family, were the owners of the land and thenceforth they kept the rents received from the tenant Ishvara and never accounted for them to defendant No. 2.2. On...
Tag this Judgment!Jan Mahomed Abdulla Datu Vs. Datu Jaffar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom59; (1913)15BOMLR1044
Beaman, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs, who are the sons of Abdulla Datu, a Khoja, pray that it be declared that the properties mentioned in the plaint and the business referred to therein are the properties and business of a joint and undivided family. That the rights of the plaintiffs and the other defendants therein, be ascertained and declared. That the said properties be partitioned between the plaintiffs and the defendants, in accordance with their interests so ascertained and declared. That for these purposes all necessary directions be given, enquiries made, and accounts taken. That in the meantime a Receiver be appointed. That the defendants 1 and 2 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from alienating or otherwise disposing of the same. That it may be declared that the release referred to in the plaint is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and defendant 3, or in the events that have happened it is inoperative against the plaintiffs and defendant 3. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!Bacharaj Nyahalchand Marwadi Vs. Babaji Tukaram Avail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR930
Shah, J.1. The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows :-On the 3rd July 1900 the plaintiff obtained a decree in the terms of an award, whereby he was required to pay a sum of Rs. 600 by annual instalments of Rs. 50 and to redeem the mortgaged property. It was further provided in the decree that 'if the plaintiff failed to pay any two instalments to the defendant in time, his right to redeem the mortgaged lands should for ever be foreclosed and then the said lands should be taken by the defendant into his possession from that of the plaintiff. Till then the lands should be allowed to remain in the possession of the plaintiff himself.' Subsequent to this decree, two instalments in full for 1902 and one instalment in part for the year 1903 were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. No other instalment was paid thereafter. An application was made on the 20th July 1905 to the Court for certifying those payments in satisfaction of the decree. This application was signed by the...
Tag this Judgment!B.A. Brendon Vs. Shrimant Sunderabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom181; (1914)16BOMLR164
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the will and codicil of the deceased Desai of Navalgund was inoperative and the defendants as executors had no rights under it, and that the plaintiff No. 2 was the lawfully adopted son of the deceased, and they prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering into possession of the plaint property. The Desai of Naval and was the last of a series of Desais whose title came into existence in the time of the Bijapur monarchs in the 17th century. The Desai was the chief revenue officer of the district under both the Mahomedan rule and the Maratha rule which followed it. During the tenure of office of the family, to which the deceased Lingappa belonged, many grants in inam of villages had been made to the Desai for the time being. Sometimes they were expressed to be for the Desai and his karkuns and sometimes they were grants given to the Desai simply. After the disturbance and the un-settlement caused by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›