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.
Maneklal Motilal Vs. Mohanlal Narotamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR226
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for several injunctions against the defendant, his neighbour. He succeeded in getting an injunction from the District Judge restraining the defendant from invading the privacy of his bedroom by opening a window in the additional storeys erected by him. The Judge has found as a matter of fact that the privacy of the plaintiff was not invaded directly before the house of the defendant was raised, and he has given effect to the decisions of this Court which have held that in the province of Gujarat there is a customary usage which makes an invasion of privacy an actionable wrong, and that a man may not open new doors or windows in his house, or make any new apertures, or enlarge old ones, in a way which will enable him to overlook those portions of his neighbour's premises which are ordinarily secluded from observation. That is laid down in Maniahankar Hargovan v. Triham, Narsi (1837) 5 B. H. C. 42. The Court said: 'Aseries of de...
Nowroji Pudumji, Sadashiv Ramchandra Natu and Hari Waman Bhat Vs. Laxm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR219; 55Ind.Cas.831
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicants in this case presented a petition to the District Judge of Poona, stating that they were Honorary Liquidators of the Deccan Bank, Limited, Poona, under voluntary liquidation, and asking for the examination of certain persons who were Directors, Managers and other Officers of the Company with respect to their conduct of the business of the Company and as to their conduct and dealing as Directors, Managers and other officers thereof during the years in which they acted as such Directors, Managers, etc. There were originally nine respondents. The learned District Judge made an order for the examination of respondents 1 to 4. Against that order respondents 1, 2 and 3 have appealed.2. The first question is whether a voluntary liquidator can apply to the Court for an order for the examination of persons connected with the management of the Company. Section 215 of the Indian Companies Act says: 'Where a Company is being wound up Ma voluntarily, the l...
Bai Parvati Vs. Dayabhai Manchharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR704; 58Ind.Cas.266
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Kashidas died in 1868 leaving a widow Gulab, a son Ghelabhai and two daughters Parvati and Jekore, His property descended to his son Ghelabhai. On Ghelabhai's death his mother Gulab became his heir. Gulab died in 1911. In 1891 Gulab and Parvati one of the daughters gifted two properties to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 who were the minor sons of the deceased daughter Jekore, purporting to convey those properties by Gulab as the life-tenant and by Parvati as the next reversioner. After the death of Gulab, Parvati filed this suit to recover the property from the donees under the gift of 1891 on the ground that the deed as against her was invalid as it conveyed her chance of surviving Gulab, and succeeding therefore to the property as reversioner.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the appeal against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the First Class Subordinate Judge. A good deal of confusion often arises in cases of this nature owing to the fact...
In Re: Kalidas J. Jhaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR31; 58Ind.Cas.462
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Mr. Jhaveri, a pleader practising at Ahmedabad, was one of the respondents against whom notices were recently issued in consequence of a letter which was addressed to the Registrar of the High Court by Mr. Kennedy, the District Judge of Ahmedabad. After the notices had been served, the respondents asked for inspection of Mr. Kennedy's letter, and they were allowed to receive copies of that letter. I should have thought that any 1 pleader ought to have known that it was contrary to the rules of the profession, and contrary to the duty which he owed to this Court, to show that letter to any outsider, or give copies of that letter to any outsider. The respondent, Mr. Jhaveri, obtained a copy of this letter, which, I may remark, was a private letter written by the District Judge to the Registrar, and therefore, the private property of the Court until the proceedings had become public. Mr. Jhaveri handed a copy of that letter to Mr. Gandhi, who he knew was the ed...
Thakarana Tejrani Vs. Sarupchand Chhaganbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR209; 55Ind.Cas.964
Heaton, J.1. In this case we have the Talukdari Settlement Officer on behalf of a person described as a Talukdar suing to redeem a mortgage. The mortgaged property, it is admitted, was part of the jivai estate which up to the year 1847 was vested in one Raisang, who in that year died. He left a nephew, the son of his brother, and a widow, and it was the widow and the nephew who joined in making the mortgage to redeem which this suit has been brought. The defendants opposed the claim on the ground that Narsang, the Talukdar whose estate is under the management of the Talukdari Settlement Officer, has no right to redeem the mortgage. Narsang himself is dead and was succeeded by a son Fulsangji. But the question is whether Narsang was or was not validly adopted by Surajrani, the widow of Raisang. If he was validly adopted, then the plaintiff's suit must succeed. If he was not validly adopted, the plaintiffs suit must fail, because it is brought by one who has no right to redeem the mortga...
Bai Jamna Vs. Dayalji Makanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR214; 57Ind.Cas.571
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against his wife and his wife's parents to obtain a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, and a personal injunction restraining the parents from obstructing his wife from living with him and from allowing her to live in their house. In the first Court the suit was dismissed. In first appeal the plaintiff got a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, although the Judge directed that the decree should not be executed by detention in prison. The plaintiff was also granted an injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants from harbouring the first defendant in their house.2. Now it appears that in 1913 the first defendant left her husband's house and went to her parents' house for her confinement, and she did not return to live with her husband before the suit was filed in 1915. She has alleged in her defence to the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff had been guilty of cruelty towards her whilst she was...
Ganesh Shesho Deshpande Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR212; 57Ind.Cas.587
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the proceedings of the revenue authorities in respect of the forfeiture of his Survey No. 138 at Mahuli, Taluka Khanapur, and in respect of its subsequent disposal, were illegal and ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge who has discussed the numerous points of law which were raised by the plaintiff, and has given expression to his conclusions in a really very excellent judgment. It does not seem necessary for us to deal with the case at any great length, as we fully concur in everything which has been said by the learned District Judge. The order of forfeiture was made on the 6th of May 1911, and under Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act the party aggrieved by that order had one year within which to file a suit to set it aside. It it quite true that the party aggrieved need not apply to the Court. He may content himself with the various...
Govind Narayanrao Desai Vs. Vallabhrao Narayanrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR217
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The parties in this case are brothers, and there is no doubt that the relations between them are strained. The defendant is in possession of the family property. The plaintiff seeks partition. All sorts of claims evidently have been made by the plaintiff alleging that the family properties are of far greater value than the amount admitted by the defendant. -It is also alleged that the defendant has been grossly mismanaging the family property, and on that account it appears that in 1915 the plaintiff got an injunction from the Court restraining the defendant from dealing with the property. In 1916 he got an order appointing a Receiver, and the Court appointed the Collector Receiver, and the Collector imposed certain conditions involving expense which the plaintiff was not inclined to pay. The result was that the order appointing a Receiver remained in abeyance until 1918 when eventually the expenses were provided for, and the Collector consented to be appoin...
Govind NaraIn Rao Desai Vs. Vallabhrao Narayanrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.827
1. The parties in this case are brothers, and there is no doubt that the relations between them are strained. The defendant is in possession of the family property. The plaintiff seeks partition. All sorts of claims evidently have been made by the plaintiff, alleging that the family properties are of far greater value than the amount admitted by the defendant, It is also alleged that the defendant has been grossly mismanaging the family property, and on that amount it appears that in 1915 the plaintiff got an injunction from the Court restraining the defendant from dealing with the property. In 1916 he got an order appointing a Receiver, and the Court appointed the Collector Receiver, and the Collector imposed certain conditions involving expense which the plaintiff was not inclined to pay. The result was that the order appointing a Receiver remained in abeyance until 1918 when eventually the expenses were provided for, and the Collector consented to be appointed Receiver, From that or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›