Mumbai Court December 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.
Harilal Lallubhai Vs. Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR822; 57Ind.Cas.601
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the owner of a bungalow on the west side of the B. B. & C. I. Railway close to the Nadiad Station, brought this suit against the Railway Company claiming a mandatory injunction directing the Company to have the old gate-way at the level crossing referred to in para 2 of the plaint re-opened, or to have some other convenient way made by the defendant Company for egress from and access to his bungalow or any other relief that the Court might deem fit with costs of the suit. The plan which has been produced shows the situation of the plaintiffs bungalow. The old level crossing was at point A and the new level crossing is at point D. Owing to the necessity of increasing sidings at Nadiad station, the Railway Company closed the level crossing at A and diverted the road to the crossing at the point D. It is obvious that point A was no longer a suitable place for a level crossing where constant shunting would be going on, and those who wanted ...
The Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta Vs. Chandra Kanta Ghosh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR586
Lord Parmoor, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated the 22nd August, 1916, affirming a judgment and decree of the First Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs. The respondent brought the present suit for a declaration that the appellants had no power under the provisions of a Road Improvement Scheme, framed under the Calcutta Improvement Act of 1911, to acquire certain land owned by him, and that all proceedings in connection with the acquisition of such land were ultra wires and of no effect. Both the lower Courts have decided in favour of the respondent, holding that the land in question is not required for the Road Widening Scheme and that its acquisition for any other purpose is not warranted under any of the provisions of the said Act. The appellants obtained leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and submit that the judgments and decrees of both Courts should be reversed and the suit dismissed.2. The d...
M.K. Swamirao Vs. J.J. Valentine
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR403; 57Ind.Cas.125
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant on the 27th of November 1915. On the 25th of March an application for setting aside this decree was made by the defendant. The plaintiff had applied for execution and he executed the decree on the 17th of April 1916. On the 1st of July 1916 the ex parte decree was set aside upon certain terms as to costs and thereafter the suit was transferred from the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona to the Haveli Court. On the 10th of August 1916 the defendant applied for the restoration of the property which the plaintiff had recovered in execution of the ex parte decree. This application was made to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. The Joint Subordinate Judge, who disposed of this application, was of opinion that the application ought to have been to the Haveli Court and that his Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The defendant appealed to the Distr...
M.R. Seturatnam Aiyer Vs. Venkatachala Gounden
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR578
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. These consolidated appeals are from three decrees of the High Court at Madras dated the 18th February, 1917. The decrees had modified three appellate decrees of the District Court of Trichinopoly which in turn had modified three original decrees of the Court of the District Munsiff of Kulitalai.2. The three suits thus came before the High Court in second appeal, so that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with any finding of fact by the District Court; its only power to determine issues of fact was that created by Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3. Each of the suits is for the recovery of possession of agricultural land in a ryotwari tract, and has been instituted by the plaintiff as the Government Pattadar.4. The number of the defendants in the several suits is 165, 103 and SO. They are not, however, in joint possession; on the contrary, they have separate holdings and should have been separately sued.5. The plaintiff's title is conceded,...
In Re: Indian Arbitration Act; in Re: Babaldas Khemchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR842; 57Ind.Cas.997
Pratt, J. 1. The plaintiff sues his two partners for an account of a partnership which he says was dissolved on the 14th of November 1917.2. This is a petition by the 1st defendant partner for stay of the suit under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, on the ground that the partnership agreement included a submission to arbitration.3. The submission is in Clause 12 of the agreement which is as follows:When any one of ourselves the above named partners shall desire to separate, he shall give three months' previous notice in writing and shall separate without raising any objection after making up the accounts. If it does not become possible to come to proper understanding the '(dispute) shall be brought to settlement by appointing three arbitrators of the three partners. This is agreed to by the abovenamed three partners. If despite this any one of the partners shall take further steps (proceedings) the same shall be on his account and at; his risk. 4. For the respondent plai...
In Re: Indian Arbitration Act
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff sues his two partners for am account of a partnership which he says was dissolved on the 14th of November 1917.2. This is a petition by the 1st defendant partner for stay of the suit under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, on the ground that the partnership-agreement included a submission, to arbitration.3. The submission is in Clause 12 of the agreement, which is as follows:When any one of ourselves the above named partners shall desire to separate, he shall give three months previous notice in writing and shall separate-without raising any objection after making up the accounts. If it does not' become possible to come to proper understanding the (dispute) shall be brought to settlement by appointing three arbitrators of the three partners. This is agreed to by the above named these partners. If despite this any one of the partners shall take further steps (proceedings) the same shall be on his account and at his risk.4. For the respondent-plain...
Trimbak Ganesh Karmarkar Vs. Pandurang Gharojee Shetye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR812; 57Ind.Cas.582
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover his two-fifth share in the plaint property by partition with three years' profits Rs. 240 plus Rs. 80 for damages on account of trees cut down by the defendants. There were five brothers two of whom Mahadev and Ramehandra sold their shares to the plaintiff on the 30th April 1914 and 10th February 1917 respectively. The trial Court ordered that the plaintiff should recover two-fifth share by a fair and equitable partition and by metes and bounds, as well as Rs. 63 for past profits and at Rs. 42 per year since 1917 till delivery of possession by partition: besides Rs. 60 for damages. An appeal from this order was summarily dismissed.2. The 1st and 2nd defendants have appealed and have confined . their objections to that part of the order which directs thorn to pay Rs. 63 as past profits to the plaintiff. It is contended for the plaintiff that he stands exactly in the shoes of his Vendor, and that if he is excluded from the joint f...
Bhujagonda Adgonda Patil Vs. Babu Bala Bhokare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR817; 57Ind.Cas.573
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property mentioned in the plaint on the ground that he was adopted by the widow of one Adgonda who died in 1911. The 1st defendant was adopted by Adgonda himself. The 2nd defendant, the elder brother of Adgonda, is sued on the ground that he was colluding with defendant 1, and had also held possession of the suit property wrongfully. The plaintiff's case depended absolutely on the question whether he could prove his title as the adopted son to Adgonda, and he contested the 1st defendant's claim to be the adopted son of Adgonda on the ground that the adoption was invalid, the adopted son being the son of Sonubai the sister of Adgonda. Both the lower Courts have considered the question of the invalidity of the 1st defendant's adoption at great length. But the real point in the case curiously enough has not been noticed by either of the lower Courts or by the parties, although one issue, namely, whether the adopti...
Jankibai Ramdayal Vs. Chimna Sadashiv Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR811; 57Ind.Cas.579
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a preliminary decree was passed against the defendant No. 5 in a mortgage suit after the case had been taken up to the High Court. As the 5th defendant failed to pay the amount mentioned in the preliminary decree, this case a preliminary decree was passed against the defendant No 5 in a mortgage suit after the case had been taken up to the High Court. As the 5th defendant failed to pay the amount mentioned in the preliminary decree, the plaintiff applied under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, for a decree absolute for sale, and a final decree was passed on the 29th June 1917. The 5th defendant then filed an appeal against that decree absolute and claimed to be allowed to file the appeal on an eight-anna stamp. The District Judge held that the Court fees must be paid ad valorem on the decretal amount. The appellant was given fifteen days within which to pay. A second appeal has now been filed against that order, and it is difficult to see on what the defenda...
Gangadhar Mahadeo Mirashi Vs. Krishnaji Vishram Nadkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR819; 57Ind.Cas.598
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property. They relied in the plaint as the basis of their title on a certain will and an award. Neither of these documents was produced when the plaint was filed, as ought to have been done, under Order VII, Rule 14. The will was only produced on the 9th of February 1916, the day before the judgment was given, and the award was not produced at all. The Judge, therefore, exercising his discretion under Rule 18 did not allow the plaintiffs to produce the material documents at that stage of the case and dismissed the claim. In appeal the Assistant Judge confirmed the decree of the lower Court. I agree with the reasons which are given by the learned Subordinate Judge. Rule 14 of Order VII was enacted in order that its provisions might be complied with, and the reasons for its enactment are very clear. It is certainly desirable that a party who sues upon a certain -document should produce it at the time he f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »