Mumbai Court July 1920 Judgments
Manilal Raghunath and ors. Vs. Radhakisson Ramjiwan, a Firm
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom238; (1921)ILR45Bom386
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 Court...
Tag this Judgment!Pandu Krishna Jadhav Vs. Dhondi Krishna Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1403
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover possession of the suit property, alleging that it originally belonged to his father Krishna who had secured it under a gift-deed from his maternal grandfather Rama. Krishna died in 1907 leaving a widow Chandra who disposed of the property in question to the first defendant at the time when she was a minor. The second defendant is the father of Krishna who is joined as a co-defendant for some reason which is not very apparent; He claimed that Krishna died joint with him and therefore the adoption by Chandra was not valid. The first Court found that Krishna died separate from his father, the second defendant, but on grounds which do not appeal to us as being correct. The presumption is that Krishna was joint with his father. There is nothing to show that he ever became separate. Admittedly there was some property belonging to the second defendant though its value may have been very small. The trial Judge came to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Dhonddev Palkar Vs. Rampratap Daulatram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1407
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner filed Suit No. 71 of 1916 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Satara against one Kondanmal and applied for attachment before judgment. The attachment before judgment was granted and the property being of a perishable nature was sold and the sale proceeds, viz., Rs. 420, were paid into Court to the credit of the suit. Eventually a decree was passed in the suit on the 10th of April 1916. The plaintiff should then have applied for execution, but it was not necessary to apply for a re-attachment of the property, because after the decree was passed the property remained in detention Then the opponent, who had previously got a decree against' the same defendant, applied for execution on the 7th of April and asked that the sale proceeds, which were lying in Court to the credit of the petitioner's suit, be attached. That he could do under Rule 10 of Order XXXVIII. The opponent's application for attachment was heard on the 12th of April and an order wa...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shamsunderbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1234
Shah, J.1. In this case, the accused was tried apparently in respect of a charge under Section 872, 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 873, arid 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, 1 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, Shamsunderbai, is a brothel-keeper. A girl, Chandrabai, who used to s...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Bhimaji Mokashi Vs. Ramkrishna Gangadhar Dixit Inamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1442; 136Ind.Cas.176
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property and his claim was resisted by the defendants 3 and 4 who denied that the plaintiff' was the owner. In the trial Court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the plaintiff's claim was allowed and he was held entitled to recover possession of the plaint property with the exception of what was mortgaged to the defendants 3 and 4. The learned Judge decided in the plaintiff's favour on the ground that defendant No. 1, through whom the plaintiff claims, was a nearer heir to Raghu than the vendors of defendants 3 and 4 who were the sons of Raghu's mother's sister. The learned Judge says: 'It is now settled law that the suggestion in West and Buhler, p. 491, as to the postponement of all other banshee to the nine specially mentioned in the Mitakshara is not correct and that the only principle governing the order of succession among bandits is that of propinquity.' Unfortunately the learned Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vasudeo Harihar Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom107; (1921)23BOMLR161; 61Ind.Cas.146
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The Governor General in Council being desirous of having the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the following question :-Whether or not on the facts in the case stated the application of the Summary Settlement in or about the year 1864 to the villages and lands of Tatya Maharaj situate in British India or to any and if so which was valid and legal ?has referred the said question for the determination of this Court under the provision of Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876.2. The parties to the reference are (1) H.H. the Maharajah of Kolhapur, (2) Shri Bala Maharaj, (3) Shri Jagannath Vasudev Pandit Maharaj, (4) the Secretary of State for India in Council The last named holds no contentious attitude in relation to the matter, the real contestants being Shri Jagannath, who claims under a decision of the Privy Council to be the person entitled to the estate of Tatya Maharaj, on the one hand, and His Highness the Mahara...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Awabai Vs. Khodadad Ardesher Koochabiogi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR913; 58Ind.Cas.91
Crump, J.1. A novel point of law has arisen in this case and at the express desire of the delegates who regard the matter as of importance, to their community I place on record my decision upon the point. The matter arose in this way. The petitioner, a Parsi lady, is suing for a divorce from her husband and the first issue is whether it is proved that the petitioner was lawfully married to the respondent. It so happens that no extract from the register maintained under Sections 6 to 14 of Act XV of 1865 is forthcoming. The evidence is to the effect that a certificate was filled in as required by Section 6, but when it was taken to the respondent to be signed he tore it up and refused to affix his signature. In these circumstances the delegates have expressed some doubt as to whether the marriage can be held to be a valid marriage, and have requested me to place my opinion upon record.2. Turning to the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, it will be seen that the requisites to. the validity ...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Motilal Vs. Gokaldas Rowji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom310; (1920)22BOMLR1048
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs died this suit against the defendants claiming Rs. 2,925 as damages for breach of a contract dated the 10th duly 1917. By an agreement of reference, dated the 25th September 1919, the matters in dispute were referred to the sole arbitration of one Ramchander Pitamber without the intervention of the Court. The first meeting before the arbitrator was held on the 17th October: the next on the 29th November when only the defendants were present. The arbitrator made his award on the 30th November allowing Rs. 1750 for damages and Rs. 50 for costs to the plaintiffs. Meanwhile the plaintiffs had written, on the 25th' November, to the arbitrator that they revoked his authority as arbitrator and cancelled the submission. The plaintiffs then moved for an ex, parte decree on the ground that the defendants had not filed their written statement, but the defendants were given time to enable them to file the award. On the 21st January 1920 the defendants gav...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Rama Bhilare Vs. Sakharam Babaji Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1396
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for obtaining specific performance of an agreement to sell the property in suit passed by Janu, the original defendant No. 1, on the 31st of August 1916. Janu died pending the suit. His daughter was substituted in his place as his heir. She admitted the plaintiff's claim, but the 2nd defendant, daughter of Janu's son, contended that at the time of the agreement Janu had become too senile and imbecile to understand the nature of the agreement and that he had bequeathed all his property to her by his will dated the 25th of June 1911. The trial Court decided that the 1st defendant as the heir of Janu must give the plaintiff a proper conveyance within one month, that the 2nd defendant had no interest in the plaint property and that the consideration to be paid by the plaintiff should go to the 1st defendant. In appeal this decision was confirmed.2. It is not now contended that the agreement to sell should be set aside on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Basvant Mushappa Hubli Vs. Mallappa Kallappa Hubli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1400
Norman Macleod, Kt. C.J.1. The plaintiff is the adopted son of Kallappa having been adopted after his death by his widow Dyamawa. He claims the suit property as the sole heir of Kallappa. The defendants originally were the widow Dyamawa, the minor daughter, Baswant, the brother of Kallappa and the natural father of Dyamawa. The first two died during the suit and it was alleged that the lands in suit were in the possession of Baswant and the cattle with Shankargowda, the fourth defendant. The defendants disputed the adoption. They also alleged that if the adoption had actually taken place it was invalid, because the widow Dyamawa was pregnant and in a polluted state at the time of the adoption. The trial Judge found that the adoption had taken place and he also held that the unchastity of the widow did not invalidate the adoption. The defendants relied on the authority of Sayamalal Dutt v. Saudamini Dasi (1870), 5 Beng. L.R. 362 in which an adoption was declared void by reason of the un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »