Mumbai Court November 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.
Hari Raghunath Patvardhan Vs. Antaji Bhikaji Patvardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR334
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain villagers with leave under Order I, Rule 8, for a declaration that the temple of Ganpati in question was a public temple and for an injunction restraining the defendant from removing the image of Ganpati to another adjoining building put up by him, The plaintiffs, who represented the villagers, alleged that this was an old temple of Ganpati which was not the private property of the defendant, that the defendant was about to remove the image to another building which he had no right to do and which, they alleged, was contrary to their sentiments and religious belief. The defendant pleaded that the temple was a private temple, that he had been in management of the temple for many years, that the temple building was in a dilapidated condition and that he had put up a new building on his own land where he wanted to instal the image after removing it from the old temple. He contended in effect that as the manager of the temple h...
Kachu Ravji Mindhe Vanjari Vs. Trimbak Khemchand Gujarathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR383
Shah, J.1. It is urged as a preliminary objection to this appeal that no second appeal lies to this Court. The original application out of which this appeal has arisen was made under rule 89 of Order XXI by the judgment-debtor. That application was rejected. There was an appeal from that order to the District Court of Nasik and that appeal was dismissed. From the order dismissing the appeal a second appeal was preferred to this Court; and the point now raised is that such a second appeal is not competent. It is clear that the appeal to the District Court was an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (j), and that under Section 104, Sub-section 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal can lie from any order passed in appeal under the section. The only ground upon which it is said that the present case falls outside the scope of Section 104, Sub-section 2, is that the auction-purchaser happens to be the decree-holder and that the order on the application of the judgment-debtor is a...
Poosathurai Vs. Kannappa Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR538
Shaw, J.1. This suit has been brought by the present appellant for the cancellation of a deed of sale executed by him on the 17th March, 1906. Cancellation was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, and the decision was reversed by decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.2. The real and only point at issue between the parties is whether the deed in question should be cancelled on the ground of undue influence. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge this point did not clearly appear from the issues which were framed. But an examination of the proceedings and evidence shows that it is to an issue of this kind that the plaintiff was throughout groping. The High Court properly discerned that; and the learned Counsel for the appellant properly presented the case from that point of view.3. It is not necessary to speculate whether the provisions of the Indian Contract Act differ in any particulars from the doctrines of the English law upon this subject. For no such differences are suggeste...
Haridas Ranchordas Vs. Mercantile Bank of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR545
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 20th November, 1916, of the High Court at Bombay, which confirmed a decree of that Court made in a suit which was instituted in that Court in its ordinary civil jurisdiction on the 27th May, 15)1'), by the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited, against Haridas Iliuichordas, Ludhu Dossa, and Bhanji Madluivji. The Mercantile Bank of India, Limited, is the respondent here. Bhanji Madhavji, named as a defendant to the suit, was not served and has, it is said, disappeared. The appellants here are Haridas Ranchordas and Ludha Dossa.2. The defendants, under the name of Dharamsay Jaitha & Co. carried on business at Bombay as cotton merchants, their bank era were the plaintiff Bank, and the suit wan brought by the Bank to recover from them a balance due by the defendants to the Bank and interest on that balance. The defendant, 1-Haridast Ranchordas and Ludha Dossa tiled a written statement and counter-claim in which they claimed an account,...
Chintamanibhatla Venkata Reddi Vs. Her Highness Sri Maharani Sri Sitab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR541
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Madras, dated the 29th February, 1916. It reversed a decree of the District Court of Vizagapafcain, dated the 7th October, 19142. The object of the suit, which was by a reversioner, was for the purpose of setting aside a deed of sale-an alienation by a widow : and the pinch of the case, as argued in the Courts below and before their Lordships, is whether that alienation is challengeable on the ground that it is made without legal necessity. The sale took place so far back as the 5th May, 1880. The widow in question survived that wale by no less a period than seventy years, she having died on the 15th December, ' 1900. The suit the present case was instituted in the year 1912, within a few days from the expiry of the period of limitation under the statute. It results accordingly that the investigation subsequent to the initiation of the suit in 1912 was an investigation with regard to the circumstances of a transaction more...
Ahmed Asmal Muse Vs. Bai Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR826; 57Ind.Cas.553
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was originally brought at the beginning of 1913 by the plaintiff. He sued to have a declaration that he was the nearest agnate of the deceased Adam Amanji and that the defendants 1 and 2 acquired no rights by his will, and that therefore, he, the plaintiff, was entitled to the property in suit after the death of defendant No. 1. Admittedly the property in suit is Bhagdari property and comes within the provisions of the Bhagdari Act.2. The trial Court on the 15th October 1914 passed the following order: 'Declared that the plaintiff is the nearest agnate of the deceased Adam and is entitled to succeed to his Bhag property in suit after the death of defendant No. 1. Declared that the will of the deceased Adam is inoperative in so far as the Bhag property in suit is concerned, and defendant 2 does not acquire any right to the said property under the said will against the plaintiff. Plaintiff's prayer for the appointment of a receiver is rejected.'3. An...
In Re: Valli Mitha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR195; 55Ind.Cas.860
Shah, J.1. In this case a victoria-driver lodged a complaint against the opponent under Section 28 of the Bombay Act VI of 1867 in the Court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for the lawful fare due to him. The Magistrate found against the complainant on the merits and held that what the opponent had offered was the proper legal fare. He however held that the complaint was vexatious and ordered the complainant to pay to the opponent Rs. 25 as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Haying regard to the language of Section 28 of the Act it appears that it provides summary remedy for the recovery of the legal fare and that a complaint under the section is not a complaint in respect of an offence within the meaning of Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear from the language of the other sections in the Act that when the Legislature intends that a particular act or omission should be treated as an offence, appropriate language is used to indicate the int...
Hiralal Ambalal Vs. Gopalji Kallianji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR338
Heaton, J.1. We do not think it necessary to call upon the respondents.2. This case is one in which the plaintiff's sued for damages for the breach of a contract on the ground that the defendants, to whom they had sold certain goods, had failed to take delivery. When the case came on for hearing there was put in-certain correspondence, and it was admitted that there were three contracts relating to these goods. The first was the sale by Mathuradas to the plaintiffs, the second was the sale by the plaintiffs to the defendants which is the contract for the breach of which the plaintiffs sue, and the third was the sale by the defendants back to Mathuradas, the original vendor. It was further admitted that these contracts related to precisely the same goods. Counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs in the trial Court, there said that if the Court thought that on the admitted facts there was only a claim for differences he did not wish to contest the case further; and the Court gave judgment...
Hurnandrai Fulchand Vs. Pragdas Budhsen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR343
Heaton, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover damages for the breach of a contract. The contract was an undertaking by the defendants to Hupply a certain number of bales of Dlioties manufactured by the Bradbury Mills on or before the 31st December of the year 1918. The defendants supplied a certain number but they did not supply the number contracted for. The plaintiffs, therefore, sued for damages for failure of the defendants to supply the full number.2. The trial Court gave them a certain amount of damages on the ground that the defendants had failed to supply a certain number of bales which they ought to have supplied; but it refused a part of the damages claimed on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the contract was not to be interpreted as an absolute undertaking to supply the whole number contracted for.3. On this the plaintiffs have appealed and they claim the full amount of the damages which they claimed in their plaint. They say the contract was an ab...
Shankar Sana Vs. Shivabhai Vallavbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR223; 55Ind.Cas.831
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit by his next friend the Talukdari Settlement Officer against the defendant to recover possession of the plaint land with mesne profits for the year 1915, alleging that his estate was in charge of the Court of Wards; that a notice calling for submission of claims was published in the Government Gazette of the 6th June 1907; that the defendant did not submit his claim as a mortgagee within six months as required by the said notice; that, therefore, notice was issued to the defendant to give up possession of the land on the 25th October 1913 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code; that possession was taken of the land on the 3rd June 1914 in the presence of the Panch; that defendant took back such possession wrongfully on or about the 6th June 1914 when the cause of action for this suit accrued. The defendant denied the claim and alleged that the notice did not bind him; that Section 14 of the Court of Wards Act did not bind him, nor ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »