Mumbai Court February 1920 Judgments
Sir Mahomed Yusuf Ismail, Bart. Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom200; (1920)22BOMLR872; 57Ind.Cas.971
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In 1915 the defendant in this suit was erecting a building at Sutar Chawl. The Presidency Post Master was anxious to secure premises in the building for a Post Office and entered into correspondence with the defendant.2. On the 1st ' February 1915 the defendant wrote to the Presidency Post Master as follows :-With reference to the Post Office Superintendent's interview with me I have arranged with Messrs. Mistry and Bhedwar, Architects, to have an accommodation for a Post Office at Sutar Chawl measuring about 650 Sq. Yds. and shall let it to you on a lease for ten years on the following conditions: 1. The rent for the place would be Rs. 175 per mensem.2. The counters and a shelf would be supplied by me.3. The electric installation to be made by me, but will be maintained thereafter by you. The place would be ready for occupation by the 1st of April 1915.3. That was clearly an offer to let the building to the Presidency Post Master for ten years at the rent o...
Tag this Judgment!Bugga Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR609
Viscount Cave, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment dated the 2nd June, 1919 of a Commission appointed under the Martial Law Ordinances of 1919 and sitting at Lahore. By that judgment twenty of the twenty-one appellants were convicted of offences under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, of waging or attempting to wage war against the King or abetting the waging of such war and were sentenced to death and forfeiture of property; but it is understood that as to some of them the death sentence has since been commuted. The remaining appellant, Ghulam Hassan, son of Makham, was convicted of an offence under Section 412 of the same Code, that is to say, of receiving stolen property from dacoits, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The question raised on the appeal is as to the competency of the Commission to try the appellants for those offences.2. The facts may be stated as follows: At the end of March and during the first days o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaga Motiji Vs. Dorabji Sorabji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1111
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff-sued to recover possession of the plaint land measuring 19 Gunthas, said belong to Survey No. 420, alleging that the land originally belonged to one Kasna Mavji exclusively, that even if the said Kasna was not the sole owner of that land, he had become the solo owner thereof by adverse possession for more than twelve years. The plaintiff was the owner of Survey No. 419. The defendant was the owner of Survey No. 420. The plaint land was situated between these two Survey Numbers. The question arose whether it formed part of Survey No. 419) or 420.2. In April 1913 the defendant presented an application to the Mamlatdar of Pardi complaining of an encroachment made by the plaintiff over the land in suit, and praying that the boundary of the two Survey Nos. 419 and 420 might be determined, and the encroachment removed. Statements of the plaintiff and the defendant were recorded before the Patel and the Talati and the Circle Inspector, and finally the...
Tag this Judgment!Ananta Murarrao Nalavde Vs. Ganu Vithu Surulkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR415; 57Ind.Cas.143
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using the water of a well alleged to have been wrongfully dug on his land. He stated that the defendants had wrongfully dug the well upon the false plea that they had obtained permission with a view to acquire a half share in the well and that they had proceeded to take tho water from the well for the purposes of irrigating their adjoining land. The defendants pleaded that they had an ancient right to take a half share of the water from the well, but that the well had fallen into disrepair and that they had consequently taken permission to repair it, and had done so at their own expense and had thereupon proceeded to use the water of the well according to their previous rights for the irrigation of their adjoining land.2. The Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Karad found as a fact that the defendants had had an ancient right of the nature of an easement to take the water from the wel...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchand Manjimal Vs. Goverdhandas Vishindas Ratanohand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR606
Viscount Cave, J.1. These are suits for alleged breaches of certain contracts for the sale of cotton. Each contract contained an arbitration clause and the defendants in each suit applied under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 for a stay of proceeding with a view to the issues being referred to arbitration under the clause. The first Court granted a stay, but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner at Sind reversed the orders and refused a stay of proceedings. Applications were made to the Judicial Commissioner for certificates under Section 109(a), or in the alternative under Section 109(a), of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, with a view to an appeal to this Board. The learned judges of the Judicial Commissioner's Court took the view that the orders refusing a stay were final orders and, accordingly, granted a certificate under a 110 to the effect that the value of the matter in dispute exceeded Rs. 10,000. Thereupon the appeals were brought to His Majesty in Council, an...
Tag this Judgment!Pandu Bala Jagtap Vs. Ram Chandra Ganesh Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom23; (1921)ILR45Bom61
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover enhanced rent from the defendant who was his permanent tenant. The defendant pleaded that he was liable to pay only the amount of the assessment in respect of the land held by him and nothing more.2. The trial Court disallowed the defendant's contention and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff allowing him certain enhanced rent. In appeal the District Court affirmed the view that the plaintiff was entitled to enhance the rent and varied the decree of the trial Court as to the amount which was to be allowed as enhanced rent.3. The defendant preferred a second appeal to this Court, and the view taken by the appellate Court was affirmed in that appeal. From this decision of a single Judge in second appeal the present appeal under the Letters Patent is preferred to this Court.4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the view-taken by this Court as to the meaning of the expression ' alienated village' as used in Section 217 o...
Tag this Judgment!Shidramappa Mariappa Manvi Vs. Mahomed Yusaf Imamdinsab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1107
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged that a stream passed between his Survey Nos. 638 and 639 in Gadag and the defendants' lands to the south ; that a road passed to the east of the parties' lands; that the water from the lands beyond that road belonging to the Acharyas of Annigeri and Sortur alone passed to the stream and none else; that a portion of the rain-water from the lands to the east of defendants' lands passed into the defendants' lands by certain passages shown in the sketch, Exhibit 62; that the defendants dug earth from the road and stopped the passages, with the result that the water in the stream was thereby increased and washed away the banks on the plaintiff's side and caused him damage.2. The lower Court granted the plaintiff a decree directing the defendants to restore the plaintiff's land to the extent to which . it had been washed away as marked in Exhibit 63 in red pencil, and to plant kalnars or devubalis there to prevent further washing away of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Husseinbhai Cassimbhai Vs. the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR846; 57Ind.Cas.991
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff applies by this Originating Summons for the construction of a deed of partition and particularly for a declaration as to whether a valid wakf has been created by it.2. The deed of partition was executed by the heirs of Hussein-bhai Chimnaji Tamboli on the 29th of June 1899 and by it they divided his estate. The heirs were the widow, the sister and the paternal uncle; and the estate was divided into three parcels, one of which was allotted to each heir. The parcel allotted to the sister Lalbai consisted of two houses, one in Teli Gully and the other in Nagdevi Road. The uncle and widow relinquished all claims to this parcel and Lalbai covenanted that the entire parcel should become her property absolutely from the date of the deed and she further covenanted 'to spend one-fourth of the same in charity and for the spiritual benefit of the deceased performing the ceremony of Agiari Maulood and other charities as the deceased used to make, and that she constitutes ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Timaji Desai Vs. Raghavendra Gururao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR650; 58Ind.Cas.221
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holder to execute the decree passed on an award. Originally in 1904 a simple mortgage bond wan passed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and his brother for Rs. 6, 500. The; disputes between the parties as to this bond were referred to an arbitrator and an award was made. Subsequently on the application of the plaintiff which was registered as a suit a decree was passed in terms of the award. Under that decree the defendants were to pay Rs. 14,000 in eleven instalments. The first ten instalments were to be annual instalments of Rs. 1,300 each and the last instalment was to be of Rs. 1,000. The first instalment was to be paid on the 1st of August 1916 and the other instalments were to be paid on the 1st of August every following year. The decree further provided that in case of default by defendants to pay any two instalments out of tin said instalments, the said instalments should be paid within six month...
Tag this Judgment!The Surat City Municipality Vs. Maneklal Ichharam and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1104
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The defendant Municipality sought to levy a tax on the plaintiffs' vehicles on the ground that they were empowered to do so under Section 59(b)(ii) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. Their argument seems to have been that every cart kept outside the District was liable to be taxed if it happened to be used within the district, that is to say, that every cart kept outside for use in the district was liable to a tax. That by itself is putting a strained meaning on the words of the Sub-section 'kept for use within the district.' But if Sub-section (ii) were in any way obscure, its meaning is made perfectly plain by Sub-section (iii) which refers to vehicles, boats, or animals used for riding draught or burden, which enter the district, but are kept outside. The Municipality are entitled to levy a toll on such vehicles and animals whether loaded or unloaded.2. Then we are told that the Municipality have made rules whereby they only levy a toll on loaded vehic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »