Mumbai Court January 1914 Judgments
Yeshvant Vishnoo Nene Vs. Keshvant Bhai Ji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR252
Beaman J. 1. In this case I think the defendants must succeed on two very substantial grounds. The plaintiff is suing as a Fazendar to evict the defendants. The defendants claim to be permanent tenants. It is unnecessary to trace the respective title of the parties since there is no dispute but that the plaintiff derives from the original Fazendar and the defend' ants from the original lessee Manik Vithal. I am much indebted to counsel for taking me back to the original sources of the law in this Presidency upon Fazendari tenure, and thus giving me an opportunity of analyzing the sources of that law and tracing the confusion of thought and language which appears ever since to have characterised the common Bar opinion upon this topic.2. The first ground upon which I shall place my decision is that upon a mere construction of the lease Ex. B in the case. dated the 22nd of February 1860. I have no doubt whatever but that it is a permanent lease. The lessee takes on what is called Fazendar...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shamji Ramchandra Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom29; (1914)16BOMLR202
1. In this particular case the are such as to require elucidation by two distinct theories, one of deliberate deceit and the other of carelessness or negligence. Seeing that there is no appearance on behalf of the Crown to support the recommendation for enhancement of sentence, we do not think that we are called upon in this particular case to interfere.2. We should like to add this comment, somewhat similar to one I have made already to-day. Enhancement of sentence is a very serious proceeding and where there is a proposal to that effect it ought, in my judgment, if it is a sound proposal, to be supported by the Government Pleader under instructions which will enable him to put before us cogent reasons why there should be an enhancement of the sentence....
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashankar Pranshankar Vs. Bai Magan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom55; (1914)16BOMLR236; 24Ind.Cas.730
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs to obtain possession of a certain dwelling house according to the terms of a deed executed on the 21st March 1903 by Bhaidas Rajaram for himself and members of his family. By that document it was recited that it had been resolved at a meeting of creditors that if creditors of the family firm represented by Bhaidas to the extent of a r,22,000 out of the total number of - creditors claiming 1,61,8001 should sign the deed before midnight on the 5th March 1903, Bhaidas should make over to the trustees all the assets of tin: family specified in Schedule B, subject to a special condition regarding the family houses at Kelapith, namely that the trustees should allow the family to live therein up to the 20th of October 1903 in the same manner as it had been living there after getting a lease passed by Bhaidas, and that thereafter the family should take the house and make over the same forthwith into the possession of the trustees. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorbhai Revadas Vs. Ranchhodia Dhulia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom114; (1914)16BOMLR459; 13Ind.Cas.37
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was instituted by Kishorbhai Revadas, the executor who had obtained probate of the will of Jijibhai Kasandas, to recover from the first defendant Rs. 144 as rent of certain fields occupied by him as yearly tenant, and possession of those fields.2. The defence of the first defendant was that the deceased Jijibhai had asked him to pay the rent to his nephew Jivabhai, who was the second defendant in the case, and the second defendant Jivabhai contended that the deceased made no will, and that the will proved was fabrication.3. The second defendant prior to the institution of this suit on the 2nd of March 1905 made an application to the District Court for revocation of the probate granted to the plaintiff upon the ground that the will was a forgery, and that he (the second defendant) had been prepared to prove it in the probate proceedings, but at the last moment the plaintiff had bought him off, and that a mutual arrangement had been effected whereby the...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. Gopal Jiv Ghadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom36(2); (1914)16BOMLR206
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to have an account taken under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act of all transactions from the commencement in connection with two mortgages of the 20th December 1865 and the 21st December 1865, and to have the amount due determined, and to obtain a decree for redemption.2. The learned Subordinate Judge on the 30th of August 1910 passed a decree for the plaintiffs for possession of the property, except one survey number, free from incumbrances, the defendants having received profits for twenty-five years after the debt had been paid off. Before passing that decree the learned Judge had investigated certain questions of fact in issue between the parties with reference to the amounts due in respect of different mortgages and different plots of land. Then instead of making up the final mortgage account himself he, as is permissible under the Civil Procedure Code, referred the taking of the account to a Commissioner, The Co...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ragha Jaga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom36(1); (1914)16BOMLR200
1. A certain police sepoy was convicted of the offence of over-staying his leave, or rather of not returning to duty on the expiration of his leave. He was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 3. The District Magistrate has submitted the papers to us for the purpose of enhancing the sentence.2. We certainly think that a sentence of this kind for an offence of this nature is quite inappropriate if the offence is of the kind that appears in this case-the deliberate refusal to return to duty on the part of a police officer or a police sepoy on the expiration of a short period of leave. At the same time it is now more than four months since this case was disposed of. It is not shown that there is any particular necessity to make an example of the offending sepoy. Consequently the particular circumstances of this case are not such as in our judgment would overcome the very proper and the very desirable reluctance of this Court months afterwards to send to jail a man who h...
Tag this Judgment!Rasul Karim Vs. Pirubhai Amirbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom42; (1914)16BOMLR288; 24Ind.Cas.625
Beaman, J.1. I think of this Court's revisional power of some general interest manner in which the question brought a suit the object directing the defendant to corrugated iron sheets with and invaded his easement being the nature of the made and acceded to by ordered the defendant to up, and this order was Breach of contract or injury of a lame contract or relating to the a mandatory injunction is not e rule. of the Specific Relief Act bions are treated as distinct from party provided for. The English the Judicature Act, 1873, and of this, even in England, the injunction on interlocutory application cases that occurred: Gale v. Courts of Justice Chambers to prejudice the defence. One act is decreed without there being line and before the merits are Order fully the erections the defendant which the injunction has been will, in no way, be prejudiced erections at our expense in case the discretion of the Court. the discretion in the plain-of interfere under Section 115 with discretion. T...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Pandurang Balkrishna Pathak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR87
1. In this case we only-deal with the particular point which we decide.2. The applicant had since the coming into force of Act I of 1910 made declarations under Sections 4 and 5 of Act XXV of 1867. The Magistrate had made an order under the proviso to Clause 1 of Section 3 of Act I of 1910 dispensing with the deposit of any security. Subsequently the Magistrate, for reasons with which we need not concern ourselves, came to the conclusion that he would cancel that order and require security. He did this by an order dated the 6th of August 1912 but in requiring security he did not require it for the purpose contemplated by Section 3, Clause r that is to say, he did not require it in respect of the press but in respect of the newspaper which was published at the press and he directed accordingly. After that time the newspaper was not published, but the press was used. For this use of the press the applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Clause 1 of Section 23 of Act I of 1910. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangappa Revanshiddappa Hundekar Vs. Gangappa Malleshappa Hundekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom6; (1914)16BOMLR195
Shah, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, arising under the following circumstances:-2. A suit was brought by one Gangappa Rudrappa Hundekar in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur substantially to have it declared that he was the adopted son of the deceased Rudrappa Hundekar against Chanbasava kon Rudrappa and others. The suit was decided on the 12th February 1909 in favour of the plaintiff. Chanbasava preferred Appeal No. 61 of 1909 to this Court against the decree in the said suit. On the 7th August 1909 an application was made by one Virupakshappa to be joined as a co-appellant with Chanbasava and to continue the appeal with her alleging that he was adopted by Chanbasava on the 12th May 1909. The application was granted on the 13th August 1909 subject to any objections the respondents might have to urge at the hearing. Chanbasava is stated to have died about 15th October 1910 but apparently no application was made by any o...
Tag this Judgment!Chhogmal Balkisondas Vs. Jainarayan Kanaiyalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom142; (1914)16BOMLR213; 24Ind.Cas.743
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Macleod dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who carry on business as Shroffs, Pakka Adatyas and commission agents in Bombay, to recover Rs. 48,045-15 as a balance of account payable by the defendant on transactions in which the plaintiffs acted as the defendant's Pakka Adatyas. The balance appearing against the defendant is attributable to losses on forward contracts for the sale or purchase of silver, Bengal cotton, Broach cotton and linseed. All these losses occurred on contracts under which in fact no delivery was given or taken and all the contracts were entered into with the plaintiffs by Mangalchand, the Munim of the defendant's Cawnpore branch. The defendant disputes the authority of Mangalchand to enter into forward contracts on his behalf and upon this contention arises the first point in the appeal.2. Mangalchand was the sole Munim of the defendant at Cawnpore from 1897 to 1911 his remuneration b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »