Mumbai Court August 1920 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Changouda Pirgouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1241
Crump, J.1. This appeal raises a point of law which is not entirely free from difficulty. It may be stated as follows:-By virtue of Government Notification No. 7087, dated October 19, 1915 published at p. 257 of the Bombay Government Gazette, Part I for 1915 the offence of murder, punishable under Section 802 of the Indian Penal Code, is triable before the Court of Session of Belgaum with the aid of assessors: and the offence of causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is triable before the- same Court by a jury. In the present case the accused stood charged with murder and with no other offence and the offence was therefore triable by the Sessions Court with the aid of assessors. That offence was so tried up to and including the stage of the trial at which the two assessors recorded their opinions. After those opinions had been recorded the Sessions Judge adjourned the case for judgment. He held that the facts were within the sc...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Sarabhai Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR48; 60Ind.Cas.578
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover certain taxes said to have been illegally levied by the Ahmedabad Municipality. In the lower Courts the case has been disposed of on somewhat different grounds, but in the result a refund of the excess of the drainage tax claimed by the plaintiff is allowed but a refund of the house and property tax is not allowed. In the appeal before us, a refund of the excess amount levied in respect of the house and property tax for the year 1911-12 is claimed on the ground that rule No. 74 of the Rules and bye-laws of the Ahmedabad Municipality, which were in force at the time, has not been complied with. It is stated that the assessment list with the Proposed alteration for the year 1911-12 was published in April 1911, and the notice of the proposed increase in the tax was given to the plaintiff by the Municipality on the 20th of June. The plaintiff objected to the enhancement on the 12th July' but a demand was made for the enhanced amount on...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Sitaram Gadkari Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom302; (1921)23BOMLR89; 60Ind.Cas.744
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be allowed.2. The learned Judge thought that because the question as to which Court the appeal lay was not involved in doubt, therefore there was not sufficient cause for the appellant not preferring the appeal to the Court of the District Judge within time. But that is not, in my opinion, the right criterion in cases of this kind. I do not think that the learned Judge has read the remarks of Mr. Justice Jardine (Dadabhai v. Maneksha I.L.R. (1896) Bom 552. in the way in which they should be read. He has not attached the right meaning to the words ' in good faith '. I think that the appellant was entitled to rely upon the advice of his pleader that the appeal lay to the High Court and a party cannot be said to be acting without good faith because he relies upon a person whose status entitled him to give advice to litigants. It may be that the pleader ought to have known that the appeal lay to the District Judge. But there again ...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Purshottam Parnekar Vs. Radhabai Balkrishna Trimbak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom220; (1921)23BOMLR92
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 3,637 being the balance due on two mortgage deeds dated 28th June 1891 and 26th September 1892. The defendant in his written statement contended that he was an agriculturist and that the suit should be tried under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The following issues were raised as preliminary issues:(1) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act?(2) Whether the suit is maintainable without a succession certificate? And(3) Whether a certificate under the Pensions Act is necessary ?2. On the first issue the Judge found that the defendant was an agriculturist, The second issue was found in the affirmative and the third in the negative. Further issues were then drawn up:-1. Whether the mortgage bonds in suit are proved ?2. What is proved to be the consideration of the said bonds ?3. What is proved to be the amount received by plaintiffs towards satisfaction of ...
Tag this Judgment!Changouda Firgouda Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.195
Crump, J.1. This appeal raises a point of law which is not entirely free from difficulty. It may be stated as follows:By virtue of Government Notification No. 7087, dated October 1915 published at page 257 of the Bombay Government Gazztte, Part I, for 1915, the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is tri-able before the Court of Session of Balgaum with the aid of assessors: and the offence of causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is triable before the same Court by a jury. In the present case the accused stood charged with murder and with no other offence, and the offence was, therefore, triable by the Sessions Court with the aid of assessors. That offense was so tried up to and including the stage of the trial at which the two assessors recorded their opinions. After those opinions had been recorded the Sessions Judge adjourned the case for judgment. He held that the facts were within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivan Haribhai Vs. Kalidas Mulji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom188; (1921)23BOMLR81; 60Ind.Cas.901
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was entitled to a right of pre-emption in reference to the plaint land, which admittedly was agricultural land. In the trial Court the second issue was: ' Has plaintiff the right of pre-emption with respect to the land in suit whether according to law or to any local custom'. The third issue was; 1920 Does defendant show that the right of pre-emption does not extend to or cannot be exercised in respect of agricultural land?' That issue was founded on the contention in the Kalidas defendants' written statement that the right of pre-emption did not extend to agricultural lands. The trial Court dismissed the suit finding issues 2 and 3 in the negative. In appeal this decree was set aside and the case was remanded for disposal on merits after substituting this issue: 'Does plaintiff prove the existence of an ancient and invariable custom of pre-emption among Hindus of the Surat District in respect of agricultural land...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Karsandas Vs. Vishnu Ganesh Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom182; (1921)23BOMLR84; 60Ind.Cas.903
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 3,553-11-0 and costs with future interest by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The mortgage is dated 30th of November 1902. It is common ground that the mortgage deed was not properly attested and therefore the suit on the mortgage must fail. The plaint was allowed to be amended so as to enable the plaintiffs to ask the Court to declare that they were entitled to subrogate and fall back upon the previous deed of the 29th December 1887 and that the claim on that deed was not time-barred as it was acknowledged in the deed of 1902, the Satekhat of 22nd August 1901 and also the Vasul mentioned in the plaint.3. The facts of the case are simple. In 1887 the mortgage of the plaint property was executed in favour of four brothers. In 1901, the four brothers partitioned and they were paid off on the day that the last payment was made on account of the mortgage. Ganesh, the son of one of the mortgagees, agreed to pay the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Karsandas and anr. Vs. Vishnu Ganesh Gokhale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom597
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 3,553-11-0 and costs with future interest by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The mortgage is dated 30th of November 1902. It is common ground that the mortgage deed was not properly attested and therefore the suit on the mortgage must fail. The plaint was allowed to be amended so as to enable the plaintiffs to ask the Court to declare that they were entitled to subrogate and fall back upon the previous deed of the 29th December 1887 and that the claim on that deed was not time-barred as it was acknowledged in the deed of 1902, the Sate-khat of 22nd August 1901 and also the Vasul mentioned in the plaint.3. The facts of the case are simple. In 1887, the mortgage of the plaint property was executed in favour of four brothers. In 1901, the four brothers partitioned and they were paid off on the day that the last payment was made on account of the mortgage. Ganesh, the son of one of the mortgagees, agreed to pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Mahadev Dunakhe Vs. Dhondo Moreshwar Dunakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom184; (1921)23BOMLR69; 61Ind.Cas.34
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to obtain an order against the defendant enjoining him to make good the plaintiffs share by payment to plaintiffs of Rs. 9,000 and interest thereon after date of suit and costs. Plaintiff No. 2 filed suit No. 241 of 1903 against the defendant, his father and plaintiff No. 1 for partition and obtained a decree for partition in the Poona Court on the 15th of June 1905. Plaintiff No. 2 then filed a Darkhast No. 85 of 1907 for execution of that decree. A compromise was effected between plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendants. In pursuance of that compromise certain properties were allotted to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 including a mortgage dated 12th December 1895 and executed by one Khanderao Amritrao Naik. Under the compromise plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 got a right to recover Rs. 3,000 including principal and interest on that mortgage. The plaintiffs sued the mortgagor in Suit No. 378 of 1910 but it was held that the consideration for the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Andaniswami Vs. Totadswami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR75
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleges that he is one of the (Jagadgurus of the Lingayats, that he has many branch Maths in the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras, in the territories of the Patwardhan Chiefs and of His Exalted Highness the Nizam, that plaintiff's Gurus before him had and plaintiff has the right of going in procession seated in a cross-palanquin adorned with and accompanied by Panch-Kalash and Birudavali, that they had and have that right as Jagadgurus, that they have a right that their disciples should show them that honour in their own village and also when they go out visiting in public streets, that the plaintiff's Gurus had and plaintiff has exercised this their right since ancient times, that this procession in a cross-palanquin is taken out in plaintiff's village Mundarigi every year on Vaishak Sud 10 and 11, last Monday and Tuesday in every Shrawana, on Ashwin Sud 10 and at the beginning of Margashirsha without fail. It is taken out also when plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »