Mumbai Court November 1915 Judgments
Sitabai Bhratar Raghunath Vyankatesh Vaidya Vs. Laxmibai Bhratar Vyank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom337
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The question is whether this suit can rightly be held to fall within the scope of Section 16(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge has held that it does not. The suit is one by the mother of the deceased husband of the 1st defendant against that defendant and her father. Both the defendants live in a Native State, and therefore in respect of personal claims they will not be liable to the jurisdiction of the Court unless the suit falls within Section 16. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a maintenance allowance of a certain amount for her life against the 1st defendant and for residence and pilgrimage expenses and other claims, and also for stridhan property, and one of the objects of the suit, which is set out in the prayer, is that the liability to pay the sums claimed should be made a charge on the 1st defendant's land in the Inam village in the Bhimthadi Taluka of the Poona District and on her share also in the said villa...
Tag this Judgment!Sitabai Raghunath Vaidya Vs. Laxmibai Vyankatesh Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom272; 32Ind.Cas.985
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The question is whether this suit can rightly be held to fall within the scope of Section 16(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge has held that it does not. The suit is one by the mother of the deceased husband of the 1st defendant against that defendant and her father. Both the defendants live in a Native State, and, therefore, in respect of personal claims they will not be liable to the jurisdiction of the Court unless the suit falls within Section 16. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a maintenance allowance of a certain amount for her life against the 1st defendant and for residence and pilgrimage expenses and other claims and also for stridhan property, and one of the objects of the suit, which is set out in the prayer, is that the liability to pay the sums claimed should be made a charge on the 1st defendant's land in the Inam village in the Bhimthadi Taluka of the Poona District and on her share also in the said vill...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sanjiva Shivapa Bader
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom222; 33Ind.Cas.320
1. In this case we agree with the District Magistrate that the Conviction is unsustainable. All that the accused did was to use in a licensed tonga a licensed pony, though the licensed pony did not bear the number of the tonga. The accused has been convicted under Section 2 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act. The learned Magistrate who convicted the accused appears to have thought that to ply a tonga with a pony, licensed generally but not licensed for that particular tonga, fell within the words of Section 2, which prohibits the keeping or letting for hire of any public conveyance without the license referred to in the section. But there is no provision of the Act which requires that a particular pony or ponies should be yoked to a particular tonga or that the ponies used should be branded with, the number of a particular tonga. Under Section 1 of the Act the:'land conveyance' is defined as the carriage by whatever number of horses or other animals it may be drawn. In Emperor v. Har...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yesa Nana Didwagh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1915
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR85
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Satara asking us to quash a committal order under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Certain persons have been committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court of Satara on charges under Sections 419 and 467, read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82, Sub-section (c) and (d), of the Indian Registration Act. The learned Judge takes the view ithat the prosecution under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act is incompetent without the sanction of the registration authority under Section 83 of the Act, and for that reason he invites us to quash the committal order. The question whether a sanction to a prosecution under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act its required under Section 83 has given rise to a difference of opinion amongst certain of the High Courts of India, but this Court does not seem to have expressed any opinion upon the subject.2. Now readi...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Beg AmIn Beg and anr. Vs. Narayan Meghaji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom255; (1916)ILR40Bom358
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, are two Mahomedan women, and they brought this suit to enforce their right of pre-emption in respect of two agricultural survey numbers which were sold by the 2nd defendant, a Mahomedan woman, to the 1st defendant, a Hindu. The plaintiffs own the fields adjoining the land sold.2. The suit is from a village in the Nandurbar Taluka of the Khandesh District. Both Courts have held that the Mahomedan right of pre-emption does not exist in the Khandesh District and have accordingly dismissed the suit.3. It is to be observed that no attempt was made in the trial Court to prove the right of pre-emption as a special custom or usage; but the plaintiffs relied exclusively on the doctrine of Mahomedan Law. It is now contended on behalf of the plaintiffs in this appeal that the Mahomedan rule of pre-emption exists in the District of Khandesh and should be enforced here, notwithstanding that the purchaser was a Hindu. This contention ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Beg AmIn Beg Vs. Narayan Meghaji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.933
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, are two Muhammadan women, and they brought this suit to enforce their right of pre-emption in respect of two agricultural survey numbers which were sold by the 2nd defendant, a Muhammadan woman, to the 1st defendant, a Hindu. The plaintiffs own the fields adjoining the land sold.2. The suit is from a village in the Nandurbar Taluka of the Khandesh District. Both Courts have held that the Muhammadan right of pre-emption does not exist in the Khandesh District and have accordingly dismissed the suit.3. It is to be observed that no attempt was made in the Trial Court to prove the right of pre-emption as a special custom or usage; but the plaintiffs relied exclusively on the doctrine of Muhammadan Law. It is now contended on behalf of the plaintiffs in this appeal that the Muhammadan rule of pre-emption exists in the District of Khandesh and should be enforced here, notwithstanding that the purchaser was a Hindu. This conten...
Tag this Judgment!The Textile Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Salomon Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom251; (1916)ILR4Bom570
Macleod, J.1. By a contract, dated the 18th of February 1914, the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs the total quantity of waste of the several descriptions specified in the contract produced in the plaintiffs' mills during the year ending the 31st December 1914 at the respective prices specified in the contract and to take delivery of whatever waste might be ready at least once monthly.2. The defendants deposited with the plaintiffs 3 1/2 per cent. Government Promissory Notes of the face value of Rs. 2,200 to be retained, by the plaintiffs against the fulfillment of the contract.3. The defendants are a German Joint-stock Company incorporated under the laws of Hanover, having a branch in Bombay, under the sole management of one Carl Beyer, a German subject.4. On the 4th August 1914, war was declared between Great Britain and Germany.5. On the 18th August, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants calling upon them to take, delivery of waste under the contract.6. Mr. Beyer r...
Tag this Judgment!The Textile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Vs. Salomon Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.353
Macleod, J.1. By a contract, dated the 18th of February 1914, the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs the total quantity of waste of the several descriptions specified in the contract produced in the plaintiffs' mills during the year ending the 31st December 1914, at the respective prices specified in the contract and to take delivery of whatever waste might be ready at least once monthly.2. The defendants deposited with the plaintiffs 3 1/2 per cent. Government Promissory Notes of the face value of Rs. 2,200 to be retained by the plaintiffs against the fulfillment of the contract.3. The defendants are a German joint stock company incorporated under the laws of Hanover, having a branch in Bombay, under the sole management of one Carl Beyer, a Germar, subject.4. On the 4th August 1914, war was declared between Great Britain and Germany.5. On the 18th August, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants calling upon them to take delivery of waste under the contract.6. Mr. Beyer r...
Tag this Judgment!Hansa Godhaji Marwadi Vs. Bhawa Jogaji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom217; (1916)ILR40Bom333; 33Ind.Cas.232
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The material facts are that on the 13th of March 1899 the plaintiff, who is the present respondent, got a decree for Rs. 2,508 with interest and costs against Hansa Godhaji, a minor. Both the parties are Marwadis. On the 14th of March the members of the caste assembled, and, as is held by the trial Court, effected a compromise for Rs. 2,000 in full satisfaction of the decretal debt, and, as the first Court holds, the money was paid by the appellant's mother and a receipt was passed which was signed by the plaintiff and attested by two witnesses. That payment was not, however, certified to the Court. On the 12th of March 1902 the plaintiff made an application for execution of his decree. According to the Code he was obliged as provided by Section 235(e) to state in writing upon his verification whether any and what adjustment had been made by the parties subsequent to the decree. He stated that there had been no adjustment. That statement was false according to the f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›