Mumbai Court March 1920 Judgments
Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. the Assistant Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom325; 64Ind.Cas.582
Shah, J.1. This appeal has been preferred to this Court on a stamp of Rs. 2. It is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act: and a preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondent that ad valorem Court-fee in respect of the additional compensation claimed in this appeal is payable by the appellant under the provisions of Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. By way of reply it is contended that the appeal really relates to the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation between the Government and the present claimant, and that the fee already paid is appropriate as it has been held by this Court that the Court fee of Rs. 2 is payable in respect of appeals relating to apportionment.2. After a careful consideration of the arguments on both sides, it seems to me that the substantial question in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to such compensation as is awarded by the lower Court or to the higher compensation which he claims in respect of the property acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Uderam Premsukh Vs. Shivbhajan Rampratab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR711; 58Ind.Cas.272
Crump, J.1. This is a suit to recover from defendant as surety on a guarantee. The facts are simple and are not in dispute save in one minor particular that is as to the service of notice of demand which point was ultimately abandoned as being immaterial to the result. Those facts are shortly as follows. On May 30th 1917 plaintiffs agreed to buy 100 bales of cotton, April 1918 delivery, at Rs. 406-12-0 from the firm of Balmukund Premsukh Defendant as surety guaranteed the performance of the contract. On February 3rd, 1918, plaintiffs being uneasy as to the financial soundness of Balmukund Premsukh agreed to sell to them 100 bales of the same goods for the same delivery at Rs. 617-8-0. On February 4th Balmukund Premsukh became insolvent. Plaintiffs' claim against them has been paid in part by the Official Assignee. In the present suit they seek to recover the balance from defendant. It is admitted that the market rate on the Vaida day was Rs. 712. Plaintiffs put their case alternatively...
Tag this Judgment!Genu Tukaram Tapkir Vs. Narayan Raghu Tamhane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom51; (1920)22BOMLR1147
Heaton, Acting C.J.1. This is a case of some interest, partly because it is unusual itself, and partly because it has followed a somewhat surprising course. The plaintiff is a mortgagor and seeks to redeem. The mortgage is one of a very early date about 1867 or 1868, and it provides that the mortgagor was to receive Rs. 900; and that the mortgaged property was to be placed in the possession of the mortgagee who was to enjoy the land and trees. But it was evidently contemplated that the mortgagee should develop the land in some way, probably by planting fruit trees. The mortgage provided that redemption should not take place until after twenty-one years, and that if the mortgage was not redeemed then the mortgagee was to continue to enjoy the land and to take the profits in lieu of interest. The deed also provided that if the mortgagee should, at some future time, after the expiration of the twenty-one years when the mortgagor sought to redeem, have planted trees, or something of that k...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Cunna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1247
Shah, J.1. It will be convenient to give a brief statement of the facts relating to this case. The accused Cunna and the deceased Dev Naik went together from Halgeri to Byadgi. The purpose of the trip was to well the betelnuts belonging to the deceased Dev Naik. They returned from Byadgi to Halgeri on the morning of the 4th of January 1918. The deceased had with him nearly Rs. 400, being the proceeds of the sale of his betelnuts; and this fact was known to the accused. The deceased went in the afternoon of that day to Husur, an adjoining village, and returned in the evening back to the house of Cunna. The deceased left the house of the accused during the night for his native place Hukli, and on the way from Halgeri to Hukli he was murdered on the night of the 4th-5th of January 1918. The news of his death was received on Sunday the 6th of January. His body was found with a number of wounds, but the money was not found. A report was sent by the Police Patil. But that report was sent bac...
Tag this Judgment!Narandas Raghunathdas Vs. Shantilal Bholabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom267; (1920)22BOMLR1012; 58Ind.Cas.1007
Heaton, Ag. C.J.1. The only point we are concerned with at the moment is, whether this appeal lies. For the purpose of discussing that point, one must make one or two assumptions. There was a suit in the High Court, which came before the Chief Justice and was disposed of by him, but although he had heard the evidence and had written a considered judgment as to a number of points that arose in the case, he did not decide the case on the merits. He said:-'My best course is to allow the plaintiffs leave to withdraw their suit with liberty to take such action hereafter as they may be advised against the defendants,' and afterwards he added : 'I think both parties have been in the wrong and so I make no order as to costs.' Thereafter a formal order was drawn up, which said: 'This Court doth order that the plaintiff firm be and they are at liberty to withdraw this suit and take such action hereafter as they may be advised.'2. The assumption I am making is that this was an order made under Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yellappa Ramangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom435; (1920)22BOMLR884; 58Ind.Cas.60
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted of a breach of Rule 2 framed by the Local Government under Section 75, Clause (c) of the Indian Forest Act. The breach consisted in the accused Nos. 1 and 2 having cut certain sandal-wood trees grown on their occupancy number. Both under the rule as well as under the clause of the section under which the rule is framed it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the trees said to have been cut belonged to Government or were the property of Government. In the present case the occupancy was granted many years ago and it is not disputed that the sandal-wood trees in question came into existence long after the first survey settlement. Whatever the respective ages of these trees might be, it is not disputed that in no case did the age exceed sixteen years. The trial Magistrate decided the case on the footing that the sandal-wood trees were among the reserved trees. The reference to this Court is made on that assu...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadeo Haribhai Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR368; 58Ind.Cas.915
Marten, J.1. The respondents Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadev Haribhai Desai are the editor and publisher respectively of a newspaper called Young India. They are charged with contempt of Court in publishing in that newspaper, on the 6th August 1919, a letter dated the 22nd April 1919 and written by the District Judge of Ahmedabad (Mr. B. C. Kennedy) to the Registrar of this Court, and also with publishing comments on that letter. The gist of the charge is that the letter in question was a private official letter forming part of certain proceedings then pending in this Court, and that the comments which the respondents made in their newspaper were comments on that pending case.2. The facts are not in dispute, and may be stated briefly. The case which I have referred to is In re Jivanlal Varajrai Desai (1919) 23 Bom. L.R. 13. It arose under the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court, in consequence of the above letter from the District Judge, whereby he submitted for the determin...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Karmali Rahimtulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR708; 58Ind.Cas.270
Crump, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed on August 19, 1919 by one Bai Mariambai deceased in favour of the plaintiffs. It is only necessary to consider one of the issues originally raised as the others have been abandoned. The only point on which the parties are now at variance is contained in issue No. 4, viz., whether defendant is bound to take out representation to the estate of Mariambai.2. The deceased lady was a Khoja and defendant is her son. He is prima facie her heir as the property was admittedly her 'Stridhan,' if indeed that term is strictly applicable. , Further there is a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Mariambai whereby defendant is sole legatee. The question is whether plaintiffs can call upon him to take oat probate of this will.3. Plaintiffs say that there is a grand-daughter who might in certain circumstances be entitled to succeed if there was an intestacy. Whether those circumstances exist or not ...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Vithaldas Vs. Mohanlal Maneklal Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom161; (1920)22BOMLR1158
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain certain reliefs by way of injunction against the defendants. He had obtained a decree in the trial Court which was upheld in first appeal. The defendants now appeal to this Court, and the real question is whether they had notice of the agreement which was made between the plaintiff and their vendor, it seems to have been assumed by both the lower Courts that because that document was registered, therefore the defendants must have had notice of it. It has not been argued, and I do not think it can be argued, that the agreement creates an interest in the defendants' property in favour of the plaintiff or an easement therein. It is merely a restrictive covenant by which the defendants' vendor restricted the ordinary user of his property. Such a covenant would not run with the land, and would not be binding on the purchaser unless he had notice. The question of fact whether the defendants could have had notice of this particular agre...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Kavaji Bhosle Vs. Khandu Mairala Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom413; (1920)22BOMLR1155
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem the plaint land They claimed as the heirs of the donees of one Gopal. She purported to make a deed of gift, Exhibit 40, in favour of one Laxman and others of the equity of redemption in 1863. The defendant claims under a mortgage from one Krishnai. The plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed on the ground that Gopal could not convey to any one more than the right to redeem the mortgage during her life-time. But it appears to me that the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Modhu Sudan Singh v. Rooke concludes the question regarding the nature of the widow's alienation. It is perfectly valid until it is set aside. In other words it is only voidable, not void. The question is who are the persons who are entitled to dispute the validity of such a grant. Clearly the reversioners. In this case the defendant, mortgagee, resists the attempt of Gopal's representatives to redeem the mortgage, on the ground that the gift of the e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »