Mumbai Court July 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.
Ganpatrao Sultanbao Mahurkar Vs. Anandrao Jagdeorao Mahurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR238; 55Ind.Cas.967
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar on the application of the present appellant for a refund of Rs. 1,088-5-6 said to have been wrongfully recovered by the present respondent in execution proceedings in Darkhast No. 1224 of 1906. The decree under execution was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Jhanai and transferred for execution to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar. The sum is said to have been improperly recovered by 'the respondent bout the 29th of November 1910. A suit was filed la the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Shevgaon on the, 14th of November 1918 to recover this amount, But that suit was dismissed on the 31st of March 1915 on the ground that no suit could lie and that the proper remedy was by way of an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present application was made to the Court at Ahmednagar on the 19th of May 1915. That Court has dismissed it...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Maharaja of Bobbili
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR498
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Madras dated the 27th October, 1915, which affirmed a decree of the District Judge of Vizagapatam, dated the 9th December, 1909. The suit was brought by the Maharaja of Bobbili, viz., the present respondent, for the refund of a sum levied under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act (VII of 1865), and paid under protest, and for a declaration that he was entitled to use the water from a certain channel for irrigation of the village of Narayanapuram, free of the cess.2. The respondent was the owner of a village called Narayanapuram in the district of Vizagapatam. For upwards of a century the lands of this village have been irrigated by the water of the Suvarnamukhi river flowing through an artiBeial channel known as the Sakarapalli channel. The river runs through the respondent's estate (amongst others), and its banks and bed in its course through that estate admittedly belong to him.3. The history of the facts may be stated in ...
Ganpatrao Sultanrao Mahurkar Vs. Anandrao Jagadeorao Mahurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom97
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar on the application of the present appellant for a refund of Rs. 1,088-5-6 said to have been wrongfully recovered by the present respondent in execution proceedings in Darkhast No. 1224 of 1906. The decree under execution was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Zansi and transferred for execution to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar. The sum is said to have been improperly recovered by the respondent, on ox about the 29th of November 1910. A suit was filed in the Court of, the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Shevgaon on the 14th of November 1913 to recover this amount. But that suit was dismissed on the 31st of March 1915 on the ground that no suit could lie and that the proper remedy was by way of an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present application was made to the Court at Ahmed-nagar on the 19th of May 1915. That Court has dismi...
Emperor Vs. Kondia Gopal Katkari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1090
Shah, J.1. This is an application against an order made by the Resident Magistrate of Bandra under Act XIII of 1859. The contracts in question are between certain Kathodis and the complainant. The contracts relate to the work to be done as charcoal burners from the 1st of September 1918 to the 15th of June 1919. They refer to certain small advances in cash, and the rate of wages is fixed at two annas per bag of charcoal. They also provide that the wages should be set off against the sums advanced and to be advanced to the workmen.2. It has been found by the Magistrate that 'a Katkari, if he is a good and hardworking workman, manufactures with the assistance of others and his family about 300 bags of charcoal in a season of ten months. His earning therefore at two annas a bag would come to Rs. 37-8-0.' In plain terms the result of this contract according to the finding is that when a workman with his whole family works for ten months, he earns Its. 37-8-0, that is, he earns nearly Rs. 4...
Kordia Gopal Katkari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom138; 52Ind.Cas.593
Shah, J.1. This is an application against an order made by the Resident Magistrate of Bandra under Act XIII of 1859. The contracts in question are between certain Kathodis' and the complainant. The contracts relate to the work to be done as charcoal burners from the 1st of September 1918 to the 15th of June 1919. They refer to certain small advances in cash, and the rate of wages is fixed at 2 annas per bag of charcoal. They also provide that the wages should be set off against the sums advanced and to be advanced to the workmen.2. It has been found by the Magistrate that a Katkari, if he is a good and hardworking workman, manufactures with the assistance of others and his family about 300 bags of charcoal in a season of 10 months. His earnings, therefore, at 2 annas a bag would come to Rs. 37-8-0.' In plain terms, the result of this contract, according to the finding, is that when a workman with his whole family works for (1) months, he earns Rs. 37-8-0, that is, he earns nearly Rs. 4...
Muradally Shamji Vs. B.N. Lang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR980
Pratt, J.1. On the 26th of September 1911 the plaintiff in this suit was adjudicated insolvent and an order was made vesting his estate in the Official Assignee. The plaintiff thereafter applied for his discharge and on the 2nd of October 1912 an order was made in the following terms:-'It is ordered that the insolvent's discharge be with protection suspended for one year and that he be discharged as from the 2nd day of October 1913'. In 1916 and 1917 the plaintiff acquired a saddlery business. On the 22nd day of January 1918 the Official Assignee considering that no final order of discharge had been made took possession of the plaintiff's stock-in-trade and then restored possession and allowed the plaintiff to continue his business on condition of his making payments for the benefit of his scheduled creditors. On the 7th of March 1918 the Official Assignee threatened to retake possession and on the 8th of March the plaintiff filed this suit to recover the sums which he had paid to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›