Mumbai Court July 1920 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Shamsundarbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom323; (1921)ILR45Bom529
Shah, J.1. In this case, the accused was tried apparently in respect of a charge under Section 372. Indian Penal Code, But in the course of the trial the prosecution tried to prove that she was guilty under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code. After the prosecution evidence was recorded the trial Magistrate considered the case with reference to Section 373, and-discharged the accused. The present application has been made to this Court on behalf of the Government of Bombay for revising this order of discharge and for a further inquiry into this case. We have heard the arguments on both sides, and in view of the order which we propose to make, I do not desire to say anything as to the merits of the case.2. It is necessary, however, to state the facts alleged on behalf of the Crown briefly in order to understand the point of law which has been argued and to appreciate the case for the Crown. The accused in this case, Shamsundarbai is a brothel-keeper. A girl, Chandrabai, who, used to st...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Govind Joshi Vs. Sitaram Hanmant Ramdashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom403; (1920)22BOMLR1439
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property together with Rs. 35-8-0 as arrears of rent. Admittedly there had been a default. The learned Judge in the trial Court said that it would be a hardship if the land which the defendants had been cultivating for so many years should be taken from them for two defaults in payment. He therefore passed an order relieving them against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act provided they paid the arrears of rent with interest and costs within fifteen days. That was a perfectly correct order to make and an order within the powers of the Judge to make. But in appeal the learned appellate Judge relying on the decision in Naraina Naika v. Vasudeva Bhatta I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 389 appeared to think chat the forfeiture could not be relieved against. The learned Judge said that 'the exercise of the discretion of the Court to relieve against forfeiture might depend upon the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Manikchand Maganchand Gujar Vs. Rangappa Kondappa Korpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom28; (1920)22BOMLR1435
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover on a mortgage bond dated the 6th of August 1910 Rs. 99-l5-0 principal and interest at 12 per cent from the date of the mortgage to the date of suit. The mortgage is as follows:I took from you to-day Rs. 99-15-0 to pay Mulchand Jeth; bhai. This is without interest, in consideration of this the property of my ownership situated at Wafagaon is mortgaged. The property thus described is mortgaged to you and delivered into your possession. According to the terms I shall pay the amount without interest within one year and shall take back the mortgaged property-my lands-into my possession. The profits of the said land should be enjoyed in lieu of interest. If the amount is not repaid within the stipulated time, the profits should be enjoyed in lieu of interest according to the aforesaid agreement. If the money be demanded after the expiry of the stipulated period and if I be unable to pa> the same the rupees without interest should be r...
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahimbhoy Pabaney Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Hassan Mamooji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom81; (1921)23BOMLR767
Pratt, J.1. The contract was signed by the defendant personally and he is attempting to lead oral evidence to show that he was contracting as agent and that the name of his principal was disclosed at the time of the contract.2. I think the plaintiffs' contention, that this evidence is inadmissible, is correct.3. Mr. Jinnah contends that the evidence if agency is de hors the contract and refers to Sections 231 and 233 of the Indian Contract Act. No doubt under these sections a principal not named in the contract may come forward and adopt the contract as his or per contra the other contracting party may elect to sue him although he is not named in the contract. But these sections in no way affect the liability of the party who has signed the contract.4. This distinction is clearly put in the case of Higgins v. Senior (1841) 54 R.R. 884. Baron Parke said:-There is no doubt, that where such an agreement is made, it is competent to show that one or both of the contracting parties were agen...
Tag this Judgment!NurdIn NajbudIn Vs. Umrav Bu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom56; (1920)22BOMLR1429
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover her share in the property of her grand-mother, Gulbai who died in 1892. It is admitted that she would have been entitled to half her mother's share, and she has been held entitled to one-twelfth of the estate of Gulbai.2. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation and that Article 123 applied. But we decided in Kallangowda v. Bibiahaya : (1920)22BOMLR936 that where the members of a Mahomedan family continued to live as tenants-in-common without dividing the estate of a deceased ancestor, limitation will not run from the time of his death. Here on the findings of fact by the appellate Court we cannot say that facts were proved to establish adverse possession against the plaintiff. Therefore we see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Judge.3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.Fawcett, J.4. I agree. The learned pleader for the appellants has relied upon the Privy Council case of Maung Tun Tha v. Ma ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Dinkar Nagarkar Vs. Ganesh Narayan Nagarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom191; (1920)22BOMLR1416
Norman Madeod, Kt., C.J.1. The matters in dispute in this suit were referred to arbitrators at the request of the parties who agreed to abide by the decision of the arbitrators, who were- two in number, on the points on which they agreed, and by; the decision of the umpire on point or points on which they differed. The arbitrators agreed on certain points and they filed their award on the 19th of February 1915, and on the points oh which they differed the umpire gave his decision on the 9th of August 1918. Both parties tiled objections to the arbitrators' award. The Court passed an order on an application made by the parties to amend the award on the ground that there were certain clerical errors made by the arbitrators. The order was, 'Notice to arbitrators to rectify the award under Rule 12 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Coda and notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the award should not be amended as proposed by the defendants.' On the 28th of July the plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Ganpatdas Vs. Tribhovan Jethiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom40; (1920)22BOMLR1420
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants obtained an Award Decree on the 5th September 1895 against defendants-respondents. By the terms of that decree, the defendants had to pay off the decretal sum by instalments of Rs. 400. It further provided that, should any one of the instalments remain unpaid, then the whole amount should be payable at once together with interest, and that if this was not paid the plaintiff was to recover the amount by sale of the whole of the immoveable and moveable estate mentioned in the plaint. The defendants were meanwhile debarred from alienating in any way the estate given in mortgage. This decree, as has been held by both the lower Courts, was made absolute in 1898. In 1914, the plaintiffs made an application for its execution. The defendants took the objection that the application was time-barred under Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, by reason of its having been presented more than twelve years after 1898 when the decree was made absolute. This c...
Tag this Judgment!Babusing Ramchandra Rajeshirke Vs. Pandu Tatya Kate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1413
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal must be allowed.2. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit land from the defendant. The trial Court found that the defendant had perfected his claim to mirasi rights by adverse possession, but that the plaintiff was entitled to claim enhanced rent. In appeal the finding as regards the mirasi tenure was affirmed, but plaintiff's claim for enhanced rent was disallowed, the Judge holding that the defendant ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence as regards that claim. The plaintiff could only claim enhanced rent by local usage, or prescription or agreement.3. We think that the decision of both the Courts that the defendant had succeeded in proving his claim to hold as a permanent tenant by adverse possession cannot be supported. Reference may be made to Budesab v. Hanmanta I. L. R (1896) Bom. 509 where it was held that where a landlord seeks to recover from his tenant possession of land in his tenant's occupancy, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Govind Thoware Vs. Jayanta Ravji Parawat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom228; (1920)22BOMLR1409
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed on a private award directing the judgment-debtor to pay the decree-holder Rs. 900 by annual instalments of Rs. 100 each. It also directed that in case two instalments were in arrears, the decree-holder should recover the whole sum at once by sale of two lands belonging to the judgment-debtor. Default having been made the decree-holder filed a Darkhast for the recovery of the whole sum. The judgment-debtor contended that before the award was made which resulted in the decree in question, the decree-holder agreed to advance him Rs. 200 as a fresh loan and that that sum was included in the total of Rs. 900. He thus practically said that as Ramchandra, the decree-holder, had not paid him Rs. 200 as agreed, the decree was vitiated by fraud. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was not open to the judgment-debtor to raise this contention in the case. He also found that it was not proved that the decree-holder had agreed t...
Tag this Judgment!Manalal Kaghunath Vs. Radhakison Ramjiwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1018
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover from the defendants the losses they had incurred on certain forward contracts for cotton entered into by them on their behalf as their pakka brokers.2. The defendants raised the defence of wagering and the issue raised at the trial was whether the transactions in the suit were by way of wagering.3. The trial Judge decided that issue in favour of the plaintiffs and directed an account to be taken of what was due to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed and when the appeal came on for hearing before Scott C. J. and Heaton J. the defendants asked to be allowed to call further evidence.4. The ground for the application was that the learned Judge in the trial Court was wrong in allowing the plaintiffs to change their case in the course of reply and to allege that they were in the position of mere brokers when the case had been conducted throughout on the case made by the plaintiffs that they were pakka brokers. The Cour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »