Mumbai Court February 1920 Judgments
Hargovind Fulchand Doshi Vs. Bai Hirbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR619; 58Ind.Cas.205
Heaton, J.1. The judgments of Shall and Crump JJ. state the facts with such fulness and clearness that I need not repeat them.2. The point for decision is whether Sections 31 and 32 of the Bombay Court of Wards Act are applicable to this suit. I find that they are not. 3. By the Gujarat Talukdars' Act and Court, of Wards Act the right to sue a Talukdar in the one case and a Government Ward in the other, is left unaffected, except in certain specified cases with which we are not now concerned; though suits against the Court of Wards and Officers acting thereunder are broadly speaking prohibited by Section 45 of the Court of Wards Act. The point I wish to emphasise is: that the suits which are unaffected are suits, not against Government or any officials, but against the Talukdar or the Government Ward in person and by name. This is clear from the provisions of the Acts in general and from Section 16, Clause (3), of the Court of Wards Act and Section 29D(3) of the ' Gujarat Talukdar's' A...
Tag this Judgment!Esufalli Alibhai Vs. Abdealli Gulam Hussein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1117
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit as the heir of his father Alibhai Tyabji and his mother Mariambu wife of Alibhai Tyabji for an account and administration of the estate of one Gulam Hussein. Gulam Hussein died in 1904 leaving as his heirs, according to Shia Mahomedan law, his father and mother, who are each entitled to one .sixth, and also his widow and his son and two daughters. The son is defendant No. 1 in the suit. The other defendants are descendants of the daughters.2. The suit has been dismissed in both Courts on the ground that an administration suit in reference to Gulam Hussein's estate did not lie; that the only suit that could lie was for partition on payment of proper Court-fees; and that the suit was not brought in time. I must confess I cannot follow the reasoning of the learned Judges in the Courts below in support of those findings. I cannot myself see why an administration suit in this case cannot lie, considering that Gulam Hussein died in l9...
Tag this Judgment!Essafally Alibhai Heir of Alibhai Tyebji and of Mariamboo Wife of Alib ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom424; (1921)ILR45Bom75
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suites the heir of his father Alibhai Tyabji and his mother Mariam bu wife of Alibhai Tyabji for an account and administration of the estate of one Gulam Hussein. Gulam Hussein died in 1904 leaving as his heirs according to Shia Mahomedan Law his father and mother, who are each entitled to 1/6th and also his widow and his son and two daughters. The son is defendant No. 1 in the suit. The other defendants are descendants of the daughters.2. The suit has been dismissed in both Courts on the ground that an administration suit in reference to Gulam Hussein's estate did not lie; that the only suit that could lie was for partition on payment of proper Court-fees; and that the suit was not brought in time. I must confess I cannot follow the reasoning of the learned Judges in the Courts below in support of those findings. I cannot myself see why an administration suit in this case cannot lie, considering that Gulam Hussein died, in 1904; tha...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Shri Ranjitsinghji Vs. the Bank of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR869; 57Ind.Cas.964
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated for the opinion of the Court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 90, and Order XXXVI.2. The defendant Bank is constituted and regulated under the Presidency Banks Act, 1876. By Section 23 of the said Act it is provided as follows:-When by the death of any proprietor or shareholder his stock or shares shall devolve on his legal representative, the Bank shall not be bound to recognise any legal representative of such proprietor or shareholder, other than a parson who has taken out from a Court having jurisdiction in this behalf probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased.3. Maharaj Rajkumar Shri Raghunathsinh Wakhatsinhji was during his lifetime the registered holder of fifteen shares in the Bank of Bombay particulars whereof are given in the schedule to the special case. The Maharaj died on or about the 7th day of September 1916 intestate and without having made any will. O...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Pudumji Vs. Sir Dinshaw Manekji Petit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR880; 58Ind.Cas.27
Norman Machod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant praying that the defendant might be ordered to vacate and give up possession of certain premises in his occupation to the plaintiff. The defendant is a monthly tenant of certain premises in a house belonging to the plaintiff on Hornby Road.2. The defendant has pleaded the Rent Act, and denies that the premises in suit are reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff for demolishing the same and for erecting a new building.3. Now, admittedly the house in which the defendant is a tenant together with the adjoining house is very old. The rooms are dark and badly ventilated; and certainly it would tend to the improvement of the premises and for the better conditions of the tenants who would occupy the new premises, that the present house should be pulled down and a new house built on the site with all modern conveniences. 1 cannot see, therefore, that there was anything unreasonable in the plaintiff's co...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji Vs. the Bank of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom204; (1921)ILR45Bom138
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a special case stated for the opinion of the Court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 90 and Order XXXVI.2. The defendant Bank is constituted and regulated under the Presidency Banks Act, 1876. By Section 23 of the said Act it is provided as follows:When by the death of: any proprietor or share-holder his stock or shares shall devolve on his legal representative, the Bank shall not he bound to recognise any legal representative of such proprietor or share-holder, other than a person who has taken out from a Court having jurisdiction in this behalf Probate of the will or Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased.3. Maharaj Rajkumar Shri Raghunathsinhji Wakhatsinhji was during his lifetime the registered holder of 15 shares in the Bank of Bombay particulars whereof are given in the schedule to the special case. The Maharaj died on or about the 7th day of September 1916 intestate. On the 28th of February 1918 the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Ramvallabh Vs. Vasanji Sons and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom203; (1920)22BOMLR874; 57Ind.Cas.978
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants to recover damages for the breach of a contract, dated the 9th May 1918, whereby the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs agreed to buy from the defendants 50 tons of Yellow Katha wheat at Rs. 8-2-0 per cwt. on the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract. Delivery was to be May-June 1-918 at the sellers' option. Therefore the last day for delivery was the 30th day of June 1918. The railway receipts relating to the contract goods were handed over to the plaintiffs within the contract time. The plaintiffs took delivery and warehoused the goods about the 13th of July 1918. Thereafter on examining the goods the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with their quality and contended that they were not a proper and fair tender against the contract. Eventually a survey was held and the plaintiffs rejected the goods. The plaintiffs, on the 23rd of August 1918, bought 49 tons of wheat of the...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Parmeshwari Subbi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR894; 58Ind.Cas.145
Shah, J.1. The applicant before us has been convicted under Section 372 of the Indian' Penal Code for having disposed of her daughter Subbi under the age of 16 with intent that she shall be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution. The trial Court found that the ceremony described in the record as Gejjee ceremony was in fact performed in respect of the girl in question, and that the performance of that ceremony amounted to a disposal of the girl within the meaning of the section. The accused was accordingly convicted. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge has found that 'a girl, who, upon the strength of the Gejjee ceremony alone, should begin to practise harlotry, would incur reprobation among her fellows, and would be put out of communion with the caste. Dedication to the life of a courtesan is not made by Gejjee Shastra but by Falshobhan, which is the wedding of the votaress and her God.' It is further found by him that the girl in question has not become a prostitute and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Elahi Sheth Vs. Sher Ahmed Haji Mir Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom24
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The questions in this appeal arise out of the third party procedure which was introduced some years ago by means of certain Rules numbering 127 to 133 of the High Court Rules. There is no-mention in the Civil Procedure Code of third party procedure. The intention is to prevent a multiplicity of suits by bringing in third parties against whom a defendant claims contribution or indemnity. The first step is to issue a notice by leave of the Court or a Judge. A copy of the notice is served on the required person according to the Rules relating-to the service of writs of summons. In this Court the. practice regarding the service of writs of summons is somewhat different from that in England, where the action is commenced by a writ, and it is after that that directions are given for filing the pleadings.2. In this case a notice was issued against one Haji Karim Elahi Sheti at the request of the defendant. Then in the ordinary coarse the matter came before the Cham...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Elahi Sheti Vs. Sher Ahmed Haji Mir Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom195
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The questions in this appeal arise out of the Third Party procedure which was introduced some years ago by means of certain Rules numbering 127 to 133 of the High Court Rules. There is no mention in the Civil Procedure Code of Third Party procedure. The intention is to prevent a multiplicity of suits by bringing in third parties against whom a defendant claims contribution or indemnity. The first step is to issue a notice by leave of the Court or a Judge A copy of the notice is served on the required person according to the Rules relating to the service of writs of summons. In this Court the practice regarding the service of writs of summons is somewhat different from that in England, where the action is commenced by a writ, and it is after that that directions are given for filing the pleadings.2. In this case a notice was issued against one Haji Karim Elahi Sheti at the request of the defendant. Then in the ordinary course the matter came before the Chambe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »