Mumbai Court July 1917 Judgments
Blanche Edith Cates Vs. Mongini Bros
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR778; 42Ind.Cas.82
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff, Blanche Edith Cates, a qualified midwife and sick nurse, has filed this suit against Mongini Brothers, owners of a restaurant in Bombay, for damages for the injuries sustained by her. It appears that on the 4th May 1916 the plaintiff and her daughter went to defendants' restaurant at about 1-30 p. m. for lunch. They took their seats at a table whereupon a waiter switched on the electric fan which was suspended from the ceiling over that table. The plaintiff not requiring the fan asked the waiter to stop it and as the waiter switched it off it fell down with the motor dynamo and severely injured her left hand and shoulder. The plaintiff alleged that the fall of the fan must have been due to negligence for which the defendants are responsible. After she received the injuries it appears that the plaintiff was under skilled medical treatment for a month but in spite of such treatment the injury to her left hand permanently affected her use of it. The fingers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Ganesh Paranjpe Vs. Kondaji Sakharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom44; (1917)19BOMLR820; 43Ind.Cas.995
Shah, J.1. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try suits by superior holders to recover their dues from inferior holders is barred by Section 85 of the Land Revenue Code.2. Both the lower Courts hold that the section bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts: in my opinion it does not. The-Chapter in which the section occurs relates to superior and inferior, holders and the group of sections including Section 85 relates to tenants' rights. The main purpose of the section is to protect the tenants. It renders it incumbent upon the superior holders to receive payments from the inferior holders through the hereditary patel and village-accountant and it entitles the superior holders to recover dues directly from the inferior holders with the previous consent of the Collector in case the hereditary patel or village-accountant, whose duty it is to recover the dues and to account for the same to the superior holders, fails t...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Ganesh Paranjpe Vs. Kondaji Valad Sakhram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom49
Shah, J.1. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try suits by superior holders to recover their dues from inferior holders is barred by Section 85 of the Land Revenue Code.2. Both the lower Courts hold that the section bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts: in my opinion it does not. The Chapter in which the section occurs relates to superior and inferior holders, and the group, of sections including Section 85 relates to tenants rights. The main purpose of the section is to protect the tenants. It renders it incumbent upon the superior holders to receive payments from the inferior holders through the hereditary patel and village-accountant, and it entitles the superior holders to recover dues directly from the inferior holders with the previous consent of the Collector in case the hereditary patel or village-accountant, whose duty it is to recover the dues and to account for the same to the superior holders, fails ...
Tag this Judgment!Maung KyIn Vs. Ma Shwe La
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR278
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal originally brought by the defendants Maung Kyin, since deceased, and Maung Kyaw, from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Lower Burma in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, dated the 3rd August, 1914, reversing the judgment and decree of the Chief Court in its Civil Original Jurisdiction, dated the 17th June, 1912. The matters in suit between the parties have, on a former occasion, formed the subject of an appeal to this Board. The judgment upon that appeal was pronounced on the 11th July, 1911, and is reported in Hanif-un-nisa v. Faiz-un-nisa . The moaning and effect of that judgment will be presently. referred to.2. The property which is the subject of the appeal consists of four different parcels of land situated in Kemmendine, a suburb of Rangoon. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus. The owner of these plots of land was one Ko Shwe Myaing. On the 30th November, 1901, Myaing, having borrowed from Maung Kyin and Ma Ngwe Zan, his wife, 8...
Tag this Judgment!Solomon Jacob Vs. the National Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom119; (1917)19BOMLR789; 42Ind.Cas.869
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Resident at Aden-under Section 8 of the Aden Courts Act II of 1864 for the decision of this Court upon certain questions raised by the plaintiff.2. The case stated by the Resident recites the following facts:-The plaintiff in May 1915, entered into two contracts under C.I.F. terms with Messrs. P. Vella & Co. of Malta for the supply to him of 208 bags of Malta potatoes and 100 bags of Malta onions. The Company was informed by cable on the 27th July 1915, to insure the goods against war risks.3. On the 10th August 1915, the plaintiff was informed by the defendant Bank that the latter held a demand draft upon him. and would deliver shipping documents to him on receipt of the goods against payment of the Bill, viz., Rs. 3,118-7-0.4. On the 12th August 1915, the plaintiff on receipt of the invoices from the Bank paid into it the amount due on the draft and removed from the Bank a number of shipping documents which on being gone through at ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatraman Ganap Hegde Vs. Shankarnarayan Sitaram Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom223; (1917)19BOMLR862; 42Ind.Cas.947
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The ground upon which the applicant asks this Court to interfere under Section 115 of the Code is that the lower Courts failed to exercise their jurisdiction in not sending the promissory note sued upon to the Collector to be dealt with under the rules framed under the Indian Stamp Act and that the lower Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the suit altogether.2. The suit was brought upon a demand promissory note which required a one anna stamp. It was not stamped with a one anna stamp, but with four postal stamps of a quarter anna each. The rules made under the Indian Stamp Act permit of the stamping, of documents requiring a duty of one anna with either an adhesive stamp of one anna, or two stamps of half an anna. But that is the only variation permitted from the statutory provision that a one anna stamp is required.3. In this case, therefore, the promissory note was not duly stamped. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act says ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagangowda Nilapagowda Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom238(2); 41Ind.Cas.1001
Shah, J.1. This is an application by the petitioners, who were original accused Nos. 1 and 5, for a review of the decision of this Court, dated the 16th May last, and for a re-trial on the ground that certain fresh evidence is now available to them. The petitioners state that they are informed by the Local Government that the power to order re-trial rests with this Court and that they have been directed to apply to this Court for ordering a re-trial.2. We have now heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Crown in support of the view that this Court can review its judgment; but he admits frankly and fairly that he is not able to support the view that this Court has any jurisdiction to review its own judgment. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also has not seriously contended that this Court has any such jurisdiction. It is quite clear from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and from the various decisions of the different High Courts, that the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Brij Indar Singh Vs. Lala Kanshi Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR866
Dunedin, J.1. The facts out of which this case arises are very clearly and succinctly stated by Mr. Justice John stone in his judgment of the 6th April, 1909, which is part of the necessary history of the judgment actually before their Lordships. He says:-The history of this case is in brief as follows : In 1903His Highness Raja Balbir Singh of Faridkot brought a suit under Section 283 Civil Procedure Code (1882) against Kashi Earn and Joti Mai, decree-holders, Mr. G.H. Coates, judgment debtor and two others, for a declaration that certain property, attached under Kashi Bam and Joti Mal's, decree; was plaintiffs-property and so not liable. Great delay took place and an application for transfer of the case was made to the Chief Court; but a new District Judge having been ordered to Ferozepur, transfer became unnecessary. Again plaintiff applied for transfer of the case and dgain the petition, was rejected and the case was taken up thereafter on the 21st April, 1904. In. the course of th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Thakur Giridhari Singh Vs. Megh Lal Pandey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR64
Shaw, J.1. The appellant is the proprietor of 'the Zemindari of Pergunnah Noagarah, being Mahal No. 16 of the touzi of the Collectorate of District Manbhoom.2. In 1865 he executed a mokarari pottah of a small portion of Mouzah Baramashya 'with all rights ' (this being the translation of the expression ' mai hak hahuk') 'as per boundaries ... appertaining to my Zemindari, the third kismat Pergunnah Nawargarh, which is in my possession.' An annual jumma was fixed of 59 rupees and 2 seers of ghee and 1 goat.3. It is admitted that the possession was of a permanent and heritable character, subject to the payment of rent, failing which latter the mokarari 'will be cancelled at the end of the year.' There is also a clause as to trees in these terms :-You shall be entitled to the extra collections which will be realised in the village, and you shall take the prices of the trees of the same by cutting and selling them, to which I shall not have any right.4. In 1903, minerals having been discove...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerbhai Kashibhai Vs. Raisingji Jasvatsingji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom235; (1917)19BOMLR855; 42Ind.Cas.908
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff is a mortgagee of certain Wanta iand mortgaged to him in 1893 by the mother of a Talukdar who was appointed guardian of his property in the year 1881 under the Bombay Guardians and Wards Act, then in force, of 1864. The mortgage was usufructuary and it is not disputed that the plaintiff has been in possession up to the present time. The Talukdar's estate was taken under the management of the Talukdari Settlement Officer in the year 1896 under the provisions of Section 28 of the Gujarat Talukdars' Act, VI of 1888. In 1905, after that Act had been amended by Bombay Act II of 1905 by the addition of Section 29B, the Talukdari Settlement Officer in accordance with the provisions of that section issued a notice calling upon all persons having claims against the Talukdar or his property to submit the same in writing within six months from the date of the publication of the notice. The six months expired on the 23rd June 1906 without any notice being giv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »