Mumbai Court May 1920 Judgments
Bharat Indu Vs. Hakim Mohommad Hamid Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1362
Phillimore, J.1. The suit which gave occasion to the present appeal was brought by the plaintiff, now the first respondent, as assignee of a mortgage executed on the 80th August, 1895, to one Wilayat Ali Khan in favour of one Nazir Ali for Rs. 5,000 and interest. The assignment was made by deed of sale dated 24th January, 1900; and the suit was brought to recover the sum due upon the mortgage or to obtain the sale of the mortgaged property.2. There were several defendants; but those with whom their Lordships are concerned are the present appellants, heirs of one Babu Durga Prasad who had lent money to Wilayat Ali Khan upon mortgage of other properties, and had brought them to sale, and as the proceeds we're insufficient to realise the sum due upon his mortgage, had obtained a further personal decree for the balance and had thereunder attached the properties which)D were subject to the mortgage to the plaintiffs in this suit. Ultimately these attached properties appear to have been brou...
Tag this Judgment!Sitabai Vs. Bapu Anna Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1359
Buckmaster, J.1. Their Lordships do not desire to trouble counsel for the respondents. There is no controversy as to the facts which He behind this dispute, and the relevant proposition of law has been accepted in both the Courts below. It is this: that according to the Bombay School of Law the duty of a Hindu widow to obey her- husband's command compels her to act upon any mandatory direction that he may give by will as to the; way in, which her power of adoption should be exercised.2. The whole question in this case, therefore, is whether the will of one Pralhad Narayan Jog, dated the 12th June, 1901, imposed any such mandate upon his widow. The direction he gave is contained in clause 22, and it runs in these terms:-If I did not adopt a son during my lifetime my wife should, as far as possible, adopt Shankar, the second son of my elder brother, Tirth swarup Govind Varayan Jog, If he the boy cannot be obtained, any other boy should be adopted with the advice of the trustees.3. The po...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Haji Aboo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom155; (1920)22BOMLR889; 58Ind.Cas.157
1. In this case the accused have been convicted under Section 142 (1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bombay Act III of 1901) for selling at a beef-stall meat unfit for human food. The District Magistrate of Thana has made a reference to this Court against these convictions.2. No offence with reference to meat which is an article of a perishable nature could have been committed under Section 142 (1) and the convictions are clearly wrong. The power which the section gives to the Municipality is the power to destroy forthwith any article which is of a perishable nature, and which in its opinion is diseased, unsound, unwholesome or unfit for food, drink and medicine. The last paragraph of Sub-section (1) relates to any animal and any article which is not of a perishable nature, and which under the next preceding paragraph can be taken before a Magistrate. Mr. Koyajee for the Municipality has not contested this position. But he has suggested in the argument before us that these convi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›