Mumbai Court September 1913 Judgments
Hari Govind Kulkarni Vs. Narsingrao Nouherrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom27; (1914)16BOMLR30
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Belgaum dismissing an application for execution of a decree which had been passed by the Joint Subordinate Judge at Belgaum in Suit No. 246 of 1906. The decree was against defendant No. 1 personally and against the joint estate of defendants 1 and 2. It has not been made clear to us why the application for execution was not made to, or entertained by, the Court which passed the decree. But we will assume that the application was rightly made to the District Court. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the decree was a nullity and incapable of execution. There are cases which were decided under the Code of 1882 in which the opinion was expressed that it is open for an executing Court to consider whether the decree sent to it for execution was passed by a Court having jurisdiction to pass it. The dictum to that effect in the Bombay Reports is to be found in Haji Musa Haj...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Balu Gaekwad Vs. Ganpatrao Sakhujirao Gaekwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom302(1); (1913)15BOMLR1036
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this case is whether the lower appellate Court rightly entertained the appeal. The suit was originally filed as a Small Cause Court suit in the Court of a Judge having both Small Cause Court and regular jurisdiction. Finding that the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him depended upon proof or disproof of a title to immoveable property which the Small Cause Court could not finally determine, the Judge acting under the power contained in Section of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act caused the suit to be transferred to his file as an ordinary Judge at a very early stage after the plaintiff had been examined. There was no substantial irregularity in this. He could hardly return the plaint to be presented to another Judge, because he himself was the Judge having jurisdiction to determine the question of title; and no point is made of the fact that the evidence of the plaintiff recorded before him as a Small Cause Court Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyabhai Motiram Bhat Vs. Chunilal Kishoredas Pandya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom120; (1913)15BOMLR1136
Beaman J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs sue to enforce an alleged right of preemption in respect of certain property in the town of Borsad, Zilla Kaira. All parties to the suit are Hindus. The written statement resting on this fact alleged that there was no local custom authorizing the application of the Mahojnedan law of Shaffa or pre-emption. Doubtless that passage, if correctly quoted from the written statement by the learned trial Judge, was not very happily worded, as he at least appears to have thought that had he raised an issue, the onus of proof would have lain upon the defendants. I am very clearly of opinion that in litigation between Hindus where one party alleges the adoption of a whole branch of the Mahomedan law, such as that of pre-emption, and the other party repudiates the application of the foreign law, it lies very heavily on the party alleging to prove that that law has been adopted as a usage and could be proved to have been so adopted by profit ancient and invari...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Ganesh Rajendra Vs. Mathurabai Narayan Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom25; (1914)16BOMLR26
Beaman, J.1. The property in suit was first mortgaged by its owner to Govind and his two brothers in the year 1886. In 1894 the land was again mortgaged to Govind for Rs. 2500. In the meantime it would appear that Govind's two brothers must have died because in 1895 Govind brought a suit upon the mortgage of 1886 and obtained a decree. The mortgage amount claimed was Rs. 2000. Govind obtained permission to bid at the sale of the property, and also applied to the Court that that sale should be ma subject to his own second mortgage of 1894. It appears that this application was at first rejected, but the sale-certificate shows that the property was sold subject to Govind's second mortgage of Rs. 2500, and was purchased by Govind himself for Rs. 1791. Govind is the grandfather of the present minor plaintiff. Govind appears to have had two sons, Ganesh, the father of the plaintiff, and Narayan, whose widow is the defendant in this suit. Ganesh predeceased Govind. The defendant's husband sur...
Tag this Judgment!Andrew Yule and Co. Vs. Ardeshir Bomanji Dubash.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR178
Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiffs who are agents of the Bengal Coal Company are engaged as such agents in an extensive coal trade between Calcutta and Bombay supplying coal from the Bengal collieries to the many users of coal for industrial purposes in Bombay.2. This trade is continuous throughout the year and it is not Yule & Co. disputed that it is common to charter steamers for the trade for as many as twelve consecutive voyages.3. On the 17th of November 1911 the agents of the 3rd defendant wrote to the plaintiffs' agent in Bombay :-With reference to your call this morning and the conversation we bad regarding coal-supplies and steamers I now have to inform you that the owners of the ' Gymeric' are ready to charter the steamer to your firm provided suitable terms can be arranged. The position of the steamer and particulars for the charter are briefly as follows :-' Gymeric' should be ready at Calcutta in ballast from Reunion from 10th and 20th December, Capacity for about 65oo tons Beng...
Tag this Judgment!Andrew Yule and Co. Vs. Ardeshir Bomenji Dubash and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.758
1. The plaintiffs who are agents of the Bengal Coal Company are engaged as such agents in an extensive coal trade between Calcutta and Bombay supplying coal from the Bengal collieries to the many users of coal for industrial purposes in Bombay.2. This trade is continuous throughout the year and it is not disputed that it is common to charter steamers for the trade for as many as twelve consecutive voyages.3. On the 17th of November 1911 the agents of the 3rd defendant wrote to the plaintiffs' agent in Bombay :With reference to your call this morning and the conversation we had regarding coal-supplies and steamers I now have to inform you that the owners of the 'Gymeric' are ready to charter the steamer to your firm provided suitable terms can be arranged. The position of the steamer and particulars for the charter are briefly as follows : Gymeric' should be ready at Calcutta in ballast from lie-union from 10th to 20th December. Capacity for about 6500 tons Bengal Coal. Charter-party us...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gangapa Kardepa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR975
Heaton, J.1. In this case eleven persona were tried for dacoity. Seven out of the eleven either before a Third Class Magistrate or before the Committing Magistrate or both, confessed to their guilt and implicated the other four. As regards 1 these seven there was other evidence besides their confessions, All eleven were convicted and all have appealed.2. As regards the seven who made confessions, I think the evidence is conclusive.3. The only matter which requires serious consideration as regards them is whether to their confessions the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act apply, so as to render them irrelevant. The matter was considered by the trying Judge and he came to the conclusion that the confessions were relevant. Accused 1 confessed only to the Committing Magistrate and accused 2 and 5 before the Committing Magistrate confirmed the confessions they had previously made. Before I the Committing Magistrate accused 3, 6, 7 and 8 repudiated (their confessions and two...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Hari Kulkarni Vs. Chhaganlal Narsidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom141; (1914)16BOMLR20
Shah, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover money by sale of the mortgaged property described in the plaint and in the alternative, in case a decree for sale of the property cannot be passed, for a decree personally against the defendant. The bond is dated the 17th of June 1897 under which the defendant agreed to pay the amount of the mortgage debt in three instalments, the first instalment being payable on the 5th June 1898, the 2nd on the 24th June 1899, and the 3rd on the 14th June 1900. The plaintiff relied also upon two acknowledgments contained in two promissory notes, dated the 24th August 1903 and nth August 1906 respectively. The suit was filed on the 6th August 1910. The bond being attested only by one witness is inoperative as a mortgage-bond. The lower Court has, however, passed a decree against the defendant personally, holding that the plaintiffs' claim is within time.2. In appeal it has been contended on behalf of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!The Dholka Town Municipality Vs. Desaibhai Kalidas Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom198(2); (1913)15BOMLR1034
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Upon the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court we are of opinion that the decision appealed from is right. The drainage water passing along a certain drainage cut owing to some default instead of flowing along the assigned channel flows across the road into the plaintiff's field and causes damage to the plaintiff. The damage is found to be due, not to the authorised drainage work, but to the neglect of the drainage channel, which the Municipality is bound to repair. The Government made the cut under their powers under the Irrigation Act, but it was built merely for the convenience of the Municipality, who took it over, and who are authorised under Section 56 of the District Municipal Act to expend money on works outside the Municipal district. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Municipality are under no liability in respect of the damage caused to the plaintiff, because it is a matter arising from non-feasance and not from mis-feasance....
Tag this Judgment!Chatru Abaji Patil Vs. Kondaji Vithal Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom191; (1913)15BOMLR1129
Heaton, J.1. We are of opinion that the mortgage bond is not an agreement to give time.2. My second submission is that the mortgage-bond is not for a sum in excess of the decretal-debt. Both the lower Courts have found that the sum of Rs. 10-4-0, which is in excess of the decretal-debt, was paid in cash by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant when the mortgage-bond was executed. The amount for which the mortgage-bond was executed is thus made up of the decretal debt of Rs. 889-12-0 plus the sum paid in cash. The mortgage-bond is consequently not for payment of a sum in excess of the decretal-debt.3. Thirdly, I submit that the agreement to pay interest does not render the mortgage-bond void under class. (2) of Section 257A. In the mortgage-deed it is stated that interest is only to be paid if there is a failure in the payment of an instalment ; and even then interest is chargeable from the date of the default. The agreement to pay interest was therefore . conditional. It ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »