Mumbai Court April 1919 Judgments
In Re Chandulal Ranchhod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom140; (1919)21BOMLR766
Heaton, J.1. This is in form an application under Section 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a wife who in the year 1910 obtained an order under Section 488 for maintenance from her husband. She asked for an increased allowance and that is granted, and now the husband has applied to us in the exercise of our revisional powers.2. The facts we have to deal with are these: The order under Section 488 was made in 1910. In 1912 the husband obtained a decree against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. That decree was never executed. The wife has never since 1910 lived with her husband and the husband has continued to pay without objection the allowance directed by the Magistrate's order of 1910. Those, as the case is presented to us, are undisputed facts.3. It seems to me that the decree of 1912 did as a matter of law determine or put an end to the Magistrate's order under Section 488, and for this simple, but to me convincing, reason. The decree for restitution of conjugal light...
Tag this Judgment!Asharam Ganpatram Gor Vs. the Dakore Temple Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR232; 55Ind.Cas.956
Hayward, J.1. Those appeals and applications relate to the rules which have been framed under clause 12 of' this Scheme and sanctioned in 1914 by Mr. Kennedy, the District Judge of Ahmedabad. The appeals have been filed as appeals from orders in execution passed under clause 12(7) of the Scheme by the District Judge of Ahmedabad. We think we ought to deal with them as such as no objection has been taken. No orders need therefore be passed on the applications filed ex majore cautela as applications under clause 20 of the Scheme reserving general power of interference to the High Court. We have heard Sir Chitnanlal Setalvad on behalf of the Tapodhan Shevaks in Appeal 80 of 1915, Mr. Mehta on behalf of the Khedaval Shevaks in Appeal 79 of 1915 and Mr. Inverarity on behalf of the Shrigor Shevaks in Appeal 78 of 1915. We have heard Diwan Bahadur Rao on behalf of the Tarwadi Mewada Gors, represented in the second suit, in Appeal 122 of 1915, Mr. B. G. Rao for other Tarwadi Mewada Gors, so re...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kanku Vs. Bai Jadav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR837
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is a suit by a reversioner to redeem a mortgage created by a Hindu widow Bai Bonji.2. The original mortgage was in 1854. It was for the debts of the husband of Bonji. It was renewed in 1857 for the existing debts and certain further debts contracted by this widow. The latter mortgage is that in question in this suit. It contained among other provisions a Gahan Lahan clause that if the money was not paid within a year the mortgagee should become the owner.3. In 1865 a suit was filed by the widow Bonji to redeem the mortgage. It was dismissed by the Munsiff on the ground that the plaintiff had admitted in 1859 in a deposition given in a suit filed by the mortgagee against a tenant that the mortgagee had become owner of the property by the operation of the Gahan Lahan clause. For this reason the Munsiff did not apply to the case the decision in Rarnji v. Ghinto(1864) 1 B.H.C.R. 199, decided in the previous year by the Bombay High Court to the effect that notwithst...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Swaminaik Jorapur Vs. Manubai Ramdas Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom92; (1919)21BOMLR776
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an application in execution which gives rise to a rather original position. It was presented by the decree-holder in a suit in which it had been decreed that the applicant might open a new door in the southern wall of his house. The person against whom the decree was passed Opposes the application on the ground that the applicant having been given in adoption since the date of the decree has no right to take out execution. The decree presumably was in respect of his natural father's house and for the benefit of that house. It was passed in 1908. The decree-holder was subsequently adopted, and after his adoption sought to execute the decree. It is contended that he by his adoption had lost his rights in his natural family, and the only person entitled to execute the decree was the person entitled to the house, and that person must be the heir of Narsidas, the natural father of the applicant. Now the applicant was adopted by his natural father's first cousin B...
Tag this Judgment!B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom126; (1919)21BOMLR779
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff's shipped on the Bombay, Baroda & Central India Railway some 23 bales of cloth under a Risk Note Form B from Ahmedabad to Calcutta. The cloth was loaded in a closed waggon which was sealed. It was the duty of the Guard to examine the seals at every station. He went round the train at Ankleshwar and gave a certificate that all was right. At Surat, the next station at which the train stopped, one of the doors of the waggon was found to be open and one of the plaintiffs' bales was missing. Some of the cloths from the bale were subsequently discovered to have been sold by an inhabitant of Mitali four miles on the Surat side of Ankleshwar. He was convicted and sentenced but at the trial there was no finding that any railway servant took any part in the theft of the cloths. Under the Risk Note, in consideration of a special reduced rate being charged, the consignor agreed to hold the Railway Administration harmless for any loss except for loss of a complete ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Swaminaik Jorapur Vs. Manubai Kom Ramdas Gujjar Widow of De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom774
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in execution which gives rise to a rather original position. It was presented by the decree-holder in a suit in which it had been decreed that the applicant might open a new door in the southern wall of his house. The person against whom the decree was passed opposes the application on the ground that the applicant having been given in adoption since the date of the decree has no right to take out execution. The decree presumably was in respect of his natural father's house and for the benefit of that house. It was passed in 1908. The decree-holder was subsequently adopted, and after his adoption sought to execute the decree. It is contended that he by his adoption had lost his rights in his natural family, and the only person entitled to execute, the decree was the person entitled to the house, and that person must be the heir of Narsidas, the natural father of the applicant. Now the applicant was adopted by his natural father's first co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dinbai Jijibhoy Khambata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom93; (1919)21BOMLR755
Shah, J.1. In this case the Notified Area Committee for Andheri gave notice to the owner of a certain house to construct certain drainage work specified in the notice under the rules framed by the Governor in Council under the Bombay District Municipalities Act. It is said that the owner failed to carry out the work, and that it was completed by the Notified Area Committee. An application to the Resident Magistrate of Bandra was made under Section 161(2) of the Bombay District Municipalities Act, for the recovery of the expenses incurred by the Committee as provided by Rule 62, Clause (6) of the rules applicable to the Committee. The owner of the house pleaded in effect that the Chairman of the Committee had substantially modified the terms of the notice, and that the work as suggested by him having been carried out, she was not liable for the expenses incurred by the Committee. The Magistrate directed the expenses to be recovered by distress It is this order for distress that is now s...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Murarji Raghunath Gujarati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR763
Heaton, J.1. This is a case which is both interesting and important. A customer purchased from a shop-keeper goods the price of which was Rs. 2-13-0 and he tendered in payment two currency notes, one of Rs. 2-8-0 the other of rupee one. The shop-keeper accepted the notes and the change which apparently he ought to have given was annas 11, but he tendered as change only 9 annas and 3 pies, saying that the notes were not worth their face value and that 1 anna and 9 pies was charged by the shop-keeper on that account. At least that is what in substance happened, though of course we cannot be sure from the evidence, what were the exact words used. What happened exactly next we do not know from the evidence. But we know either that the customer complained to a police officer or that the police officer saw what had happened and intervened, for the two notes paid to the shop-keeper were attached, a Panchanama was made and the shop-keeper was sent before a Magistrate who, after taking evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Murarji Raghunath Gujarati Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919NULL160; 52Ind.Cas.604
Heaton, J.1. This is a case which is both interesting and important. A customer purchased from a shopkeeper goods the price of which was Rs. 2-13 0 and he tendered in payment two currency notes, one of Rs. 2-8 0 the other of rupee one. The shopkeeper accepted the notes and the change which apparently he ought to have given was annas 11 but he tendered as change only 9 anna and 3 pies, saying that the notes were not worth their face value and that 1 anna and 9 pies was charged by the shopkeeper on that account. At least that is what in substance happened, though of course we cannot be sure from the evidence, what were the exact words used. What happened exactly next we do not know from the evidence. But we know either that the customer complained to a Police Officer or that the Police Officer saw what had happened and intervened, for the two notes paid to the shopkeeper were attached, a Panchanama was made and the shopkeeper was sent before a Magistrate who, after taking evidence, frame...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Byramji Pudumji (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR761
Heaton, J.1. The only point as to which it is necessary for us to express an opinion, is the meaning of Rule 97 of the Cantonment Code of 1912. Rule 97 runs as follows:-Where any building, wall or structure, or anything affixed thereto, or any bank or tree, is, in the opinion of the Cantonment authority, in a ruinous state or in any way dangerous either, in the case of an occupied building, to the occupier or to the public, the Cantonment authority may, by notice in writing, require the owner or occupier thereof forthwith either to remove the sumo or to cause such repairs to be made as it may think necessary for the safety of the occupier or of the public, etc. 2. The point arises in this way: The Cantonment authority sent a notice under this section to the applicant to remove a building and the applicant says that the notice was not a legal notice, because under the section it had to be a notice to him, he argues, either to remove or to cause repairs to be made. So we have to choose b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »