Mumbai Court November 1917 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.
Surajmal B. Mehta Vs. B.G. Horniman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom62; (1918)20BOMLR185
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a decree of a Bench of this Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Heaton J. These learned Judges having differed in opinion, it was held that the judgment of the Chief Justice must prevail, i.e., that the suit must be dismissed. The plaintiff consequently brings the present appeal.2. The plaintiff is a solicitor of this Court, and the suit was filed to obtain damages for libel alleged to be containod in two articles which appeared in The Bombay Chronicle and were admittedly written by the Editor of that journal, the first defendant. To him I shall refer in future as the defendant, as the substantial defence is made on his behalf.3. The circumstances in which the articles complained of came to be written are as follows: Among the plaintiff's clients were two well-to-do men, one Dada and one Tatya Saheb Holkar. In 1912, Dada, in the name of his mother, Ashidbai, entered into an agreemen...
Surajmal B. Mehta Vs. B.G. Horniman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.449
Batchelor, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a decree of a Bench of this Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Heaton, J. These learned Judges having differed in opinion, it was held that the judgment of the Chief Justice must prevail, i.e., that the suit must be dismissed. The plaintiff consequently brings the present appeal.2. The plaintiff is a Solicitor of this Court and the suit was Sled to obtain damages for libel alleged to be contained in two articles which appeared in The Bombay Chronicle and were admittedly written by the Editor of that journal, the first defendant. To him I shall refer in future as the defendant, as the substantial defence is made on his behalf.3. The circumstances in which the articles complained of came to be written are as follows: Among the plaintiff's clients were two well-to-do men, one Dada and one Tatia Saheb Holkar. In 1912, Dada, in the name of his mother, Ashidbai, entered into an agreement with Holkar ...
Krishnasami Panikondar Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramasami Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR541
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. On the 4th November, 1908, the High Court of Madras dismissed an appeal from an original decree on the ground that it was barred by limitation. From this order of dismissal the present appeal has been preferred, and in its support it has been contended, first, that the order was without jurisdiction and, secondly, that it was erroneous on the merits.2. The original decree was passed on the 8th February, 1905, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Tanjore in the plaintiff's favour.3. Against it the first defendant, Krishnasami Panikondar, preferred an appeal to the Madras High Court. The last day for its presentation was the 10th July, when the Court reopened after vacation; but it was not presented until the 12th July, 1905.4. It was then returned to the appellant as out of time. It thus became necessary for the appellant to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not presenting his appeal within the prescribed period.5. He accordingly ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›