Mumbai Court June 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.
Bhagwat Koer Vs. Dhanukdari Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR477
Viscount Cave, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against throe decrees of the High Court of Calcutta dated the 22nd May, 1913, two of which affirmed decrees of the First Subordinate Judge of Saran dated respectively the 17th March and the 12th May, 1910, while the third modified a decree of the same Court dated the 18th July, 1910.2. The facts leading up to the litigation may be shortly stated as follows: Srikishan Singh, Bachchu Singh and Jugalkiahore Singh were three Hindu brothers governed by Mitakshara law and possessed of considerable properties in the districts of Saran and Gya and in Oudh. Jugalkishore died on the 5th July, 1872, without issue, leaving a widow Mussummat Anandi Koer; Srikishun died on the 18th July, 1872, without male Issue, leaving a widow and two daughters; and Bachchu died on the 9th February, 1874, leaving a son, Mahabir Singh.3. After Jugalkishoro's death Bachchu applied to the District Judge of Saran, under Act XXVII of 1860, for a certificate to collect ...
Weld and Co. Vs. Sher Mahomed Ekbal Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR808
Marten, J.1. This preliminary objection raises a two-fold point of jurisdiction, viz,, (1) whether in this case the whole cause of action arose out of the jurisdiction and therefore this Court has no power to hear the third party notice at all; (2) if part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, then whether express leave was not necessary under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent before the third party notice could be served.2. I am now on the third party notice, and have, as between plaintiffs and defendant, already given a decree in favour of the plaintiff's. The present issue, viz., No. 1, is an issue between the defendant and the third party.3. On the first point, the substance of the suit relates to certain cotton contracts on which as I have said, I have found the defendant is liable to the plaintiff's. As between the defendant and the third party the defendant's case depends on a right of indemnity and substantially it is based on an express agreement of the 21st May ...
Chaudhri Satgur Prasad Vs. Kishore Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR451
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, affirming the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. The only question of substance is when time began to run under the Indian Limitation Act against a claim to recover possession made by the first respondent. The property in dispute was held by a Hindni lady called Dilla Kunwari. She died in 1895, and the controversy turns on whether her possession was that of one claiming adversely as against any other title, or whether, as the Courts below have held, that possession was not adverse but under licence from or by permission of the predecessors-in-title of the first respondent, a licence or permission granted during the lady's lifetime, in order to afford her the maintenance which she claimed an a widow. In that case time did not begin to run against his claim until she died in 1895, and the Limitation Act has not operated so as to defeat this action.2. It will be convenient, in o...
A.R.R.M.V. Arunachellam Chetty Vs. Venkatachalapathi Gurusvamigal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR457
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 10th August, 1914, which varied a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, dated the 19th October, 1908. The exact terms of these judgments will be afterwards referred to. It is necessary, however, in order to understand them to keep clearly in view the form and nature of the suit as brought.2. The suit was brought by the present respondent 'to declare that the defendants have no right to the village of Patharakudi, and that the plaintiff, as head of the mutt, is entitled to tho possession of the village . . . and to receive the income of the same from the hands of the Receiver.'3. The village is part of the property of a mutt. It has been long administered by the appellants, who are Nagara Chetties. Broadly speaking, the contest in the cawe-and for the purpose of stating this contest colourless terms are employed-is between the head of the Mutt on the one hance who claims in virtue of h...
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi Vs. the Midnapur Zeminadri Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR488
Buckmaster, J. 1. The real question on this appeal is whether an agreement made in writing between Robert Watson-& Company, Limited, and the appellant, incorporated in a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia but not registered, is admissible in evidence. The appellant contends that it is not, and the respondents assert that it is.2. The determination of the question depends mainly upon the construction of the Registration Act of 1908, but before considering the terms of this statute it is desirable to state shortly the facts which have led up to the dispute. In 1895 the appellant instituted two suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, the one against the Government (No. 72 of 1895) and the other against Robert Watson & Company, Limited, being No. 73 of 1895. The object of each of these suits was to obtain possession of land claimed by the appellant. The land had been diluviated owing to encroachments of the river Padma and had then subsequently reappeared and formed the...
Emperor Vs. J.B.H. Johnson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1059; (1920)ILR64Bom88
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to these appeals are few and undisputed.2. On the 4th of September last at about 11-30 p. m. eighteen persons were found working in the Calico Miils, which is a textile factory,-subject to the provisions of the Indian Factories Act XII of 1911. Eighteen complaints were lodged in respect of the employment of these eighteen persons against the manager of the said factory. The accused pleaded guilty, and he was convicted in all these eighteen cases and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in each case. On appeals to the Sessions Court the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction in the first of these cases and set aside the convictions and sentences in the remaining seventeen cases. He was of opinion that the offence was one of employment of labour collectively and that it was not a separate offence to employ each person contrary to the provisions of the Act.3. It is in these seventeen cases in which the accused has been acquitted by the Sessio...
Weld and Co. a Firm Vs. Sher Ahmed Ekbal Ahmed and Haji Karim Elahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.18
Marten, J.1. The last point argued in this case is whether the costs of the defendant as against the third party ought, an to any, and, if so, what extent to be paid as between solicitor and client.2. Mr. Setalvad at the outset disclaimed any intention to ask for costs between solicitor and client. In case this judgment comes before any Judge who is unfamiliar with the Bombay practice as opposed to the practice in England, I would say that that observation has reference to what I believe to be a peculiarity in these Courts of drawing a distinction between 'costs as between solicitor and client' and 'costs between solicitor and client,' the former being mere in the nature of what in England are costs on a higher scale, and the latter being the fullest possible indemnity and which I rather gather in this Court admit of very little, if any, real taxation. I need toot dwell on that, because, as I have said, Mr. Setalvad confines his case to costs as between solicitor and client.3. As regar...
Emperor Vs. Vishvanath Vishnu Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1084
Shah, J.1. We think that the Second Class Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The only ground upon which the District Magistrate has suggested that he had no jurisdiction is that he was not specially authorized by the District Magistrate to deal with complaints under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. There is no suggestion, however, that this Second Class Magistrate was not authorized under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance of offences upon receiving complaints, and it must be taken for the purposes of this reference that he was so authorized. No further special authority to take cognizance of complaints under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act is needed in view of the definition of the word 'offence' in Section 4, Clause (o), which includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. It is clear from the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure that offences under s...
In Re: Rajasaheb Rasulsaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1085
Shah, J.1. The parties to this application are Mahomedans The wife applied to the Magistrate in the first instance for maintenance for herself and her daughter. An order was made by the Magistrate under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the 22nd of July 1918, awarding her Rs. 10 per month for their maintenance. The husband executed a talaknama, on the 14th of August 1918, in the presence of witnesses and that document was registered. Subsequently, on the 4th of December 1918, he made an application to the Magistrate for the cancellation of the said order in favour of his wife on the ground that he was no longer bound to maintain her. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that the talaknama was not valid as it was not made in the presence of a Kazi and that there was no ground to cancel his previous order. The husband then applied to the Sessions Court. But that Court refused to take any action on his application, though it was of opinion that the talaknama was valid. He ha...
N. Varada Pillai Vs. Jeevarathnammal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR444
Viscount Cave, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from ,1 decree of the High Court of Madras, dated the 19th November, 1915. reversing a decree of the District Court of Chingleput dated the 11th August, 1913, and dismissing the suit.2. The suit was brought to establish the title of the plaintiffs to a moiety of a mitta or estate situated about thirty miles from Madras and known as the mitta of Kariarnangalani. The mitta at one time belonged to Narayanasami Pillai, an ancestor of the parties, and on his death it passed to his three sons as members of a joint family. In the year 1845 a partition took place, under the terms of which the eldest son relinquished all interest in the mitta, which thereupon became vested in the two younger sons, Gopala Krishna Pillai and Parthasarathi Pillai, in equal shares. No question arises as to the share of Gopal Krishna; but it is material to state that, on his death in the year 1879 his share became vested in his widow, Rajam-mal, and that he lef...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »