Mumbai Court October 1920 Judgments
Jamshedji Hormasji Vs. Gordhandas Goculdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom201; (1921)23BOMLR442
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the 28th April 1919, the plaintiff in these proceedings, hereinafter called the petitioner, gave notice to the respondent, who is his tenant, to deliver up possession of the plaintiffs shop by the end of November 1919. As the respondent did not vacate, the petitioner filed an ejectment suit in the Small Causes Court on the 9th December 1919. The suit was heard on the 21st January 1920. A decree was passed for possession on the 21st January, the respondent being ordered to vacate by the 21st June 1920. On the 15th June 1920, the respondent took out a rule praying for two months' further time, on the ground that he had filed a suit against some other tenant of his own of other premises where he wanted to shift his shop.2. It will be observed in the first instance that from the time the respondent received notice in April 1919, he did not take any steps to provide himself with other premises, or to get his own tenant to vacate until a decree had been passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshedji Hormasji Vs. Gordhandas Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1048
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the 28th April 1919 the plaintiff in these proceedings, hereinafter called the petitioner, gave notice to the respondent, who is his tenant, to deliver up possession of the plaintiff's shop by the end of November 1919. As the respondent did not vacate, the petitioner filed an ejectment suit in the Small Cause Court on the 9th December 1919. The suit was heard on the 21st January 1920. A decree was passed for possession on the 21st January, the respondent being ordered to vacate by the 21st June 1920. On the 10th June 1920, the respondent took out a Bale praying for two months' further time, on the ground that ]he had filed a suit against some other tenant of his own of other premises where he wanted to shift his shop.2. It will be observed in the first instance that from the time the respondent received notice in April 1919, he did not take any steps to provide himself with other premises, or to get his own tenant to vacate until a decree had been passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dhanlaxmi Vs. Hariprasad Uttamram Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom262; (1921)23BOMLR433
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit (a) to have the will of one Lallubhai Karsandas, dated the 9th of April 1898, construed, and to have his rights in the properties A to R and other properties determined and declared; (b) to have an account from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and proper administration of the properties by the Court; (c) to have it declared that he was entitled to the properties specified in para 11 of the plaint, and to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his realizing the rent of the properties from the tenants in possession thereof, and also with his dealing with these properties as owner; and for further and other reliefs which it is not necessary to mention in detail.2. The testator died in 1898 leaving him surviving a sister Tara, three sons of that sister, Manilal, Kalyanrai and Hariprasad, and his own daughter Prankore. Manilal died in 1907 leaving a widow Hariganga who died in 1908, and has daughter Dhanlaxmi,...
Tag this Judgment!Rambbhai Dabhai Patel Vs. Vallabbhai Jhaverbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR422
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for an injunction restraining the defendant from preventing him from taking water into his field, Survey No. 729, by the artificial water-course by the eastern boundary of the defendant's land, Survey No. 730, marked JB in the plan, Exhibit 11. The water is carried from the well which is shown in the plan in the north of these two fields. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right to carry the water by that route, though he may have the right to carry it by the longer route running by the western boundary of the Survey No. 730, marked C in the plan. The plaintiff based his claim upon an ancient right to take water to his field by the shorter route as alleged by him and also upon the acquisition of such right by prescription, i.e., by twenty years' user as provided in Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. He also referred to an agreement which was arrived at between his father and one Samal Manor who was an agnatic relation of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Doraiswami Iyer and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR609
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a rule granted to the petitioners whereby it was ordered that the Chief Revenue Authority of Bombay should show cause, if any, why it should not, under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, draw up a statement of the case showing why the petitioners have not been exempt from payment of excess profit under Clause 2 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Duty Act X of 1919 and refer it with its own opinion to the High Court, or, in the alternative, why the Chief Revenue Authority under the said section of the said Specific Relief Act should not hear and determine according to the law the petitioners' application to refer the said question to this Honourable Court.2. Under Section 15 of the Excess Profits Duty Act Sections 49-52 of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1918 are applicable. Section 51 of the Income Tax Act says:-If in the course of any assessment under this Act or any proceeding in connection therewith other than a proceeding under Chapter VII, a q...
Tag this Judgment!Rambhai Dabhai Patel Vs. Vallabhbhai Jhaverbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom430; (1921)ILR45Bom1027
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for an injunction restraining the defendant from preventing him from taking water into his field, Survey No. 729, by the artificial water-course by the eastern boundary of the defendant's land, Survey No. 730, marked B in the plan, Exhibit 11. The water is carried from the well which is shown in the plan in the north of these two fields. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right to carry the water by that route, though he may have the right to carry it by the longer route running by the western boundary of the Survey No. 730, marked 0 in the plan. The plaintiff based his claim upon an ancient right to take water to his field by the shorter route as alleged by him and also upon the acquisition of such right by prescription, i.e., by twenty years' user as provided in Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. He also referred to an agreement which was arrived at between his father and one Samal Manor who was an agnatic relation of the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom452; (1921)ILR45Bom1064
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Rule granted to the petitioners whereby it was ordered that the Chief Revenue-Authority of Bombay should, show cause, if any, why it should not, under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, draw up a statement of the case showing why the petitioners have not been exempt from payment of excess profits duty under Clause 2 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Duty Act X of 1919 and refer it with its own opinion to the High Court, or, in the alternative, why the Chief Revenue-Authority under the said section of, the said Specific Relief Act should not hear and determine according to the law the petitioners' application to refer the said question to this Honourable Court.2. Under Section 15 of the Excess Profits Duty Act, Sections 49 to 52 of the Indian Income-Tax Act of 1918 are applicable. Section 51 of the Income-Tax Act says:If, in the course of any assessment under this Act or any proceeding in connection therewith other than a proceeding under Chap...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Ishvar AmIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom3; 60Ind.Cas.593
Pratt, J.1. The questions referred for decision to the Full Bench are.1. Whether a statement recorded by any Magistrate in the course of a Police investigation under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, is evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193, Indian Penal Code, Explanation (2)?.2. Whether such a statement can be said to be evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding if the Magistrate who records it has no jurisdiction to inquire into or try the case?.3. Whether, if such a statement is not evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding, but comes within the meaning of the words 'evidence in any other case', in Section 193, Indian Penal Code, it can be linked with a statement which is evidence in a stage of the judicial proceeding following on the investigation, so that the two can be laid to be a series of acts on which an alternative charge can be framed under Section 236. Criminal Procedure Code, of intentionally giving false evidence?.4. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Swamirao Shriniwas Parvati Vs. Bhimabai Padappa Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom368(1); (1921)23BOMLR416
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff had to file this suit to obtain a declaration that the suit house was of the ownership of the 2nd defendant, and liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree which the plaintiff had obtained against him. The 1st defendant contended that the house did not belong to the 2nd defendant but was hers and was in her Vahivat through tenants. The 1st issue raised in the trial Court was-Does plaintiff show that the whole house belongs to his judgment-debtor defendant No. 2? On that issue the Court found that half the house belonged to the judgment-debtor. The next issue was-Was defendant No. 2 in possession of it within twelve years next before suit'(The Court found that issue in the negative. Accordingly it dismissed the suit with costs with regard to house B. It appears to me that owing.2. I cannot agree with that view at all. Apparently it was not suggested, so far as I can see, from the record, that defendant 1 claimed to be in possession...
Tag this Judgment!isufalli Hassanlly Vs. Ibrahim Dajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom191(1); (1921)23BOMLR403; 61Ind.Cas.570
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs hired out a grass-press to the defendants at the rate of Rs. 22 a month. They complain that the defendants did not pay the rent, nor did they return the Press. The defendants on the other hand said that the Press was not in working order, and that they had spent some money in repairs, that still it could not be used and, therefore, they had to get a Press from another man. The Judge dismissed the suit, and has found as a fact that the Press would not work. The only question was whether the detention of the Press by the defendants would involve them in liability. He considered that owing to the express conduct of the defendants they were not liable. That was not a very satisfactory way of dealing with the question about which it is somewhat difficult to find authority. A bailee for hire is ordinarily bound to return the article hired at the end of the period for which it is hired. But the Indian Contract Act says nothing as to what...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »