Mumbai Court August 1915 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harkisandas Shivlal and ors. Vs. Chhaganlal Narsidas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom158
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us are like the defendants members of a caste known as the Dasa Lad Banias of Broach, and the caste is divided into two sections known as the Mojumpurias, (Mojumpur being a hamlet of Broach in which certain members of the caste lived or used to live), and the Sheherias or the city section. The plaintiffs belonged to the Mojumpur section, while the principal defendants belonged to the Sheheria section. The plaintiffs in their plaint set out that they were authorized by the Mojumpur section on the 18th of April 1909 to bring this suit, which they accordingly did bring under Order I, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, as representing the members of the Mojumpur section. The object of the suit was to depose the 1st defendant from the position which he appears to occupy both in the Mojumpuria and in the Sheheria sections of the caste, and the principal prayers made in the plaint were that the accounts of the Mojumpur section sho...
Harkisondas Shivlal and ors. Vs. Chhaganlal Narsidas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom261; 33Ind.Cas.264
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, are like the defendants members of a caste known as the Dasa Lad Banias of Broach, and the caste is divided into two sections known as the Mojumpurias (Mojumpur being a hamlet of Broach in which certain members of the caste lived or used to live), and the Sheherias or the City section. The plaintiffs belonged to the Mojumpur section, while the principal defendants belonged to the Sheheria section. The plaintiffs in their plaint set out that they were authorized by the Mojumpur section on the 18th of April 1909 to bring this suit, which they accordingly did bring under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code, as representing the members of the Mojumpur section. The object of the suit was to depose the 1st defendant from the position which he appears to occupy both in the Mojumpuria and in the Sheheria sections of the caste, and the principal prayers made in the plaint were that the accounts of the Mojumpur section sh...
Ramchandra Dinkar Prabhu Vs. Krishnaji Sakharam Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom279; (1915)17BOMLR967
Basil Scott C.J.1. The partition suit in which the execution proceedings (Darkhast 727-1900) now in question are taken was brought by the plaintiff a member of a Mirasi family interested to the extent of 8 annas in certain 3 villages named Kuvali, Bharni and Chafet. The other 8 annas in each village belonged to a Desai family. The plaintiff claimed a one-thirty-sixth share.2. In November, 1888 a decree was passed for partition, the main provisions of which were (1) That the plaintiff should take into his possession his 1/36 share, division by metes and bounds being effected of the whole property in dispute except the Kulkarni Watan but the plaintiff before taking possession of his share was to pay with their consent to certain of his Mirasi co-sharers including the present appellants certain specified sums of money.(2) Two equal divisions between Desais and Mirasis were to be made in each village.(3) Then from the eight annas separated share of the Mirasis the shares of the sub-sharers...
Bapuji Sorabji Patel Vs. Bhikubhai Virchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom245; (1915)17BOMLR924
Macleod, J.1. Under the present wording of Rule 519 the words 'as the Taxing Master shall in his discretion think proper to be settled by counsel' only refer to special affidavits and not to pleadings. There can be no doubt there was an intention to follow the English rule, but this intention was frustrated by the word 'such' being placed before 'special affidavits' instead of before 'pleadings.' Therefore the Taxing Master must be asked to review his taxation and allow such fees to counsel as he thinks proper....
Rangappa Ningappa Immadi Vs. Venkatbhat Linganbhat Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom224; (1915)17BOMLR950
Sir Basil Scott, C.J.1. The contest in this case resolves itself into this, whether the ceremonials observed by Lingayets in marriages are to be regarded as a whole in deciding whether or not the village Gramopadhya is entitled to perform the ceremony, or whether the ceremony can be split up into parts, and if it is found that some part of the ceremonial is similar to that according to the Brahmin ritual the Gramopadhya can insist upon payment of fees in respect of such part of the ceremonial as may have been performed by another. The point is stated exceedingly well by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mr. Wagh. He says:It is urged that some of the ceremonials such as the fastening of the Mangalsutra and the Kankandhara are common to the Hindu form and the Pancha-Kalas form, and that therefore the fastening of the Mangalsutra and the Kankandhara in the Pancha-Kalas form of marriage, entitles the plaintiffs to the fee appropriate to the Hindu form. If the ceremonials of the Brahmins, the ...
Emperor Vs. Bhimappa Ulvappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom268; (1915)17BOMLR895
Shah, J.1. In this case notices were issued to the District Magistrate and the appellant, but there is no appearance. The facts which have given rise to this reference are briefly these:The accused was tried on a charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by a Second Class Magistrate. The Magistrate convicted the accused; but being of opinion that it was a case, to which the provisions of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code might be applied, under the proviso to that section he submitted the proceedings to a Magistrate of the First Class on the 22nd February 1915. The First Class Magistrate then, acting under Section 380 of the Code, passed an order on the 4th March 1915 convicting the accused and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 25. The accused appealed to the Court of Session against this order of the First Class Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the appeal came on for hearing, however, held that the ap...
Emperor Vs. Baban Daud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR918
Shah, J.1. The petitioner in this case was arrested on a charge under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code on the 13th of January 1913. He was kept in custody at Pandharpur and tried on the 17th of January 1915 which was a Sunday. The trial was commenced and practically finished on that day. The judgment was given on the 18th of January. He was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment.2. In the petition before us he has complained that he was improperly tried on a Sunday, and that if he had not been so tried, he would have been in a position to engage a pleader and to defend himself properly. It is not argued before us that the trial held on a Sunday is illegal. It seems to me, however, that having regard to Circular No. 37 of the Criminal Circulars of this Court, ordinarily it is not proper to hold a trial on a Sunday. In the present case it is not suggested that there was any urgency or any special circumstance for adopting this unusual course. I am, therefor...
Minnie Wallace Vs. Arthur Wallace
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom261; (1915)17BOMLR948
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is a petition by the successful petitioner in a suit for dissolution of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act instituted in the Court of the Divisional Judge, Nagpur Division, in which the decree of the Divisional Judge for dissolution was confirmed by this High Court on the 20th November 1914. The petitioner prays that this Court may decree such sum or sums per month by way of alimony from the 1st April, 1912, or such other date as to this Honourable Court may seem proper. This petition was, when presented, served through the War Office upon the respondent, and in consequence of such service a letter dated the 11th June, 1915, has been addressed by his Solicitor on his behalf to the Registrar of this Court making certain proposals for payment to the petitioner for the children of the marriage. It is now stated on behalf of the petitioner that she was re-married in the month of May last, and only claims alimony up to that date. But she has two children dependen...
Baban Daud Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom254; 31Ind.Cas.352
Shah, J.1. The petitioner in this case was arrested on a charge under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code on the 13th of January 1913. He was kept in custody at Pandharpur and tried on the 17th of January 1915, which was a Sunday. The trial was commenced and practically finished on that day. The judgment was given on the 18th of January. He was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment.2. In the petition before us he has complained that he was improperly tried on a Sunday, and that if he had not been so tried, he would have been in a position to engage a Pleader and to defend himself properly. It is not argued before us that the trial held on a Sunday is illegal. It seems to me, however, that having regard to Circular No. 37 of the Criminal Circulars of this Court, ordinarily it is not proper to hold a trial on a Sunday. In the present case it is not suggested that there was any urgency or any special circumstance for adopting this unusual course. I am, therefo...
W.T. Halai Vs. Chaturbhuj Gopalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom122; (1915)17BOMLR985
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In ray opinion the appellants are entitled to succeed.2. They are executors under the will of whose testator the plaintiff was entitled when twenty-one to a legacy of Rs. 5,000 payable out of the testator's general estate.3. In answer to a claim for the legacy the executors replied the plaintiff had removed wrongfully a ring worth Rs. 2,700 belonging to the testator.4. Correspondence then ensued which ended in the executors saying that they had no alternative but to impound the legacy till the ring and certain other articles were returned or their loss compensated for. In their written statement the defendants contend the plaintiff is not entitled to the legacy before he returns the ring and they bring into Court the value of the legacy less the estimated value of the ring.5. The suit was tried as a short cause : no issues were raised, but the plaintiff's counsel contended the defendants could not set off, as under Order VIII. Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code only...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »