Mumbai Court October 1919 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.
In Re: Jivanlal Varajrai Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR13
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A notice was issued by the High Court in its Disciplinary Jurisdiction on the 12th of July 1919 against Jivanlal Varajrai Desai and Vallavbhai Jhaverbhai Patel who are Barristers-at-law and Advocates of this Court, and Mr. Krishnalal Narsilal Desai, High Court Pleader, at present practising in the Courts at Ahmedabad. The reason for issuing the notice was the receipt of a letter from Mr. Kennedy, the District Judge of Ahmedabad, dated the 22nd of April 1919, which runs as follows:-1. I have the honour to submit for the determination of their Lordships the question of the pleaders of this Court who have signed what is known as the Satyagrahi pledge. The following are the pleaders practising here who have given in their names as members of the Satyagrahi league.Mr. Gopalrao Ramohandra Dabholkar.' Krishnalal Narsilal Desai, High Court Pleader.' Manilal Vallabhram Kothari.' Kalidas Jaskaran Jhaveri.There are others who have not yet given in their names to me.2. ...
In Re: Jivanlal Varajray Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom418
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. A notice was issued by the High Court in its Disciplinary Jurisdiction on the 12th of July 1919 against Jivanlal Varajrai Desai. and Vallavbhai Jhavorbhai Patel who are Barristers-at-law and Advocates of this Court, and Mr. Krishnalal Narsilal Desai, High Court Pleader, at present practising 'In the Courts at Ahmedabad.' The reason for issuing the notice was the receipt of a letter from Mr. Kennedy, the District Judge of Ahmedabad, dated the 22nd of April 1919, which runs as follows:1. I have the honour to submit for the determination of their Lordships the question of the pleaders of this Court who liave signed what is known as the Satyagrahi pledge. The following are the pleaders practising here who have given in their names as members of the Satyagrahi League:Mr. Gopalrao Ramchandra Dabholkar.;Mr. Kriahnalal Narsilal Desai, High Court Pleader.Mr. Manilal Vallabhrara Kothari.Mr. Kalidas Jaskaran Jhaveri.There are others who have not yet given in their names to ...
In Re: Nagindas Chanusa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR184; 55Ind.Cas.851
Shah, J.1. The only question in this application is as to the Order of compensation. On the merits there Js nothing to be said in support of the application. But it is argued that as the accused were discharged on the 13th of January and the order of compensation was made on the 28th of January, the provisions of Section 250 contained in Clause (b) of the proviso have not been complied with inasmuch as the Magistrate has not stated in Writing in his order of discharge or acquittal his reasons for awarding compensation. It is argued that in consequence of this non-compliance with the provisions of the section the order is bad. No doubt the wording of the clause lends colour to the argument urged on behalf of the applicant. But in this case the notice to the complainant to show cause why an order of compensation should not be made against him was given on the same day as the order of discharge and practically in the same proceeding. The order of compensation was made after hearing the co...
In Re: Arjun Tathoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR188; 55Ind.Cas.853
Hayward, J.1. I agree. The applicants' case was one demanding careful consideration. It arose out of factions in the village which have led to quarrels between the parties which had obviously been exaggerated from mere mischief into habitual thefts. It was moreover apparently recognized that there should be a full hearing as notice for a regular hearing had been issued by the learned District Magistrate. It unfortunately however turned out that the time given in the notice was not sufficient. The notice was not received until the afternoon of the 21st and required the pleader to appear on the 22nd either at Jalgaon or at whatever camp he might find the District Magistrate. It has been admitted that the camp was then a long way from Jalgaon. So there really was not reasonable time to appear for the hearing before the District Magistrate. The result was that the parties were deprived of the benefit of having their pleas properly represented by their pleader. It is true that in the case o...
Waman Balvant Kashikar Vs. Babu Harshet Shete
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR307
Shah, J.1. The question in this second appeal is, whether the plaintiffs' claim is cognizable by civil Courts.2. The plaintiffs allege that their ancestors set up a new Bahiri temple at Chiplun for worship and devotional sports many years ago. that the present defendants' ancestors, who worshipped the same deity installed as the old Bahiri, filed Suit No. 28 of 1844 in the Court of the Munsiff of Chiplun against the worshippers of the newly installed deity, and that in that suit they in effect sought to restrain the then defendants (plaintiffs' predecessors) from carrying on the worship of the new Bahiri in the same manner as the worship of the old Bahiri. A decree was passed in the suit and ultimately upheld by the Sudder Diwani Adawlut in Special Appeal No. 4631 in the year 1852, under which the then defendants were restrained from performing certain ceremonies as being appurtenant to the village deity, but were allowed to perform them on their passing an agreement to the Collector t...
Chanbanmal Hambirmal Hundekari Vs. Bhaskak Waman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1079
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The property in suit in 1884 belonged to one Chinkabai. She mortgaged it to the plaintiff's father in 1884, In 1894 she executed a Kajiuama in favour of her son Madhavrao giving notice under Section 74 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code of 1879) that she had relinquished the occupancy of certain Survey Numbers mentioned therein, and asked for the necessary mutations of names to be made in the records. At the same time Madhavrao executed a Kabulayat addressed to the Marnlatdar, and the properties were transferred in the Government records in the name of Madhavrao. in 1903 Madhavrao mortgaged to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff brought a suit on his mortgage in 1910 and got a decree for sale in 1911. He purchased in 1915. The 1st defendant got a consent decree against Madhavrao in 1908 and purchased under that decree in 1912. The evidence adduced at the trial convinced the trial Judge that the transfer of the property to the name of Madhavrao in 1894 was merely f...
Waman Balwant Kashikar and ors. Vs. Balu Harshet Shete and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom410
Shah, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs'. claim is cognizable by civil Courts.2. The plaintiffs allege that their ancestors set up a new Bahiri temple at Chiplun for worship and devotional sports many years ago, that the present defendants' ancestors, who worshipped the same deity installed as the old Bahiri, filed suit No. 28 of 1844 in the Court of the Munsif of Chiplun against the worshippers of the newly installed deity, and that in that suit they in effect sought to restrain the then defendants (plaintiffs predecessors) from carrying on the worship of the new Bahiri in the same manner as the worship of the old Bahiri. A decree was passed in the suit and ultimately upheld by the Sudder Diwani Adawlut in Special Appeal No. 4631 in the year 1852, under which the then defendants were restrained from performing certain ceremonies as being appurtenant to the village deity, but were allowed to perform them on their passing an agreement to the Collector tha...
Dalichand Shivram Marwadi Vs. Lotu Sakharam Pardhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR136
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover on a mortgage bond the sum of Rs. 100 for principal and Rs. 100 as interest with costs and future interest. The 1st defendant admitted execution and consideration. But a preliminary issue was raised, whether the mortgage deed sued upon was valid under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Judge in the trial Court said:I examined the plaintiff today and he admits, as indeed he is bound to do, that the deed was written and signed at the writer's house where one of the actestants put his attestation on the deed. But the other witness attested the document in the Sub-Registrar's Office. It is evident therefore that there is no proper attestation of the document as required by the Transfer of Property Act.2. The suit was therefore dismissed.3. In appeal the same question was raised, and the appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge. It would seem at first. sight that the judgments of both the low...
Chandanmal Hambirmal Hundekari Vs. Bhaskar Waman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR140
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The property in suit in 1884 belonged to one Chinkabai. She mortgaged it to the plaintiff's father in 1884 In 1894, she executed a Rajinama in favour of her son Madhavrao, giving notice under Section 74 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code of 1879 that she had relinquished the occupancy of certain Survey Numbers mentioned therein, and asked for the necessary mutations of names to be made in the records. At the same time Madhavrao executed a Kabulayat addressed to the Mamlatdar, and the properties were transferred in the Government records to the name of Madhavrao. In 1903 Madhavrao mortgaged to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff brought a suit on his mortgage in 1910 and got a decree for sale in 1911. He purchased in 1915. The 1st defendant got a consent decree against Madhavrao in 1908 and purchased under that decree in 1912. The evidence adduced at the trial convinced the trial Judge that the transfer of the property to the name of Madhavrao in 1894 was merely fo...
Jamsedji F. Shroff Vs. Husseinbhai Ahmedbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR319
Pratt, J.1. The summons was issued on an application by the plaintiff for leave to continue the suit against the defendants who are Receivers of the estate of Ahmedbhai Habibbhai. The plaintiff claims to have been employed as a broker by the Receivers and sues for his brokerage. It is clear, therefore, that there is a question to be tried and the case is one in which the Court would grant leave as a matter of course: Lane v. Capsey [1891] 3 Ch. 411 and Braja Bhusan Trigunait v. Sris Chandra Tewari (1918) 4 P.L.J. 20.2. The only difficulty arises from the fact that per incuriam the suit was filed without the previous sanction of the Court. It was held in Pramanatha Nath Gangooly v. Khetra Nath Banerjee ILR (1904) Cal. 270 that leave of the Court is a condition precedent to the right to sue and that that omission cannot be rectified by subsequent application. The judgment in that case is not supported by any reasons and was not followed in Rustomjee Dhanjibhai Sethna v, Frederic Gaebele ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »