Mumbai Court November 1921 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishnagiri Trikamgiri Vs. Shridhar Kavlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR140; 67Ind.Cas.129
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on the ground that the first defendant was a designated heir of the last guru Ramgiri, and, therefore, was entitled to succeed. The plaintiff claimed as a gurubandhu. But I do not think there was any necessity to enter into the question whether as a matter of fact he was connected with the line of gurus to this Math, as the first defendant was clearly designated by Ramgiri as his successor. An application was made to the Kolhapur Darbar for permission to adopt the first defendant as a chela. That permission was granted. But before the initiation ceremony was carried out Ramgiri sent the first defendant to Malvan to learn business matters, so that he might be competent when he succeeded to manage the Math properties. When Ramgiri found his end approaching he sent for the first defendant, but unfortunately from one cause or another the first defendant arrived too late, and, therefore, although on...
Doddawa Purshya Vs. Yellawa Mallappa Beni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR158; 67Ind.Cas.134
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Mallappa Tammappa died in 1916 leaving three widows and no children. The plaintiff, one of the widows, sued her co-widows for partition. They were made defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The first defendant was the son of defendant No. 3 by her first husband. The defendants' answer was that Mallappa had adopted the first defendant in 1905 before he married defendant No. 3. The widows, therefore, were not the heirs of Mallappa. Defendant No. 1 had died after suit leaving a widow. The suit being brought more than six years after the adoption was barred by limitation. The issues in the trial Court were :(1) Is it proved that the deceased first defendant was adopted by Mallappa ?(2) Is it proved that this adoption was before the re-marriage of defendant No. 3 to Mallappa ?(3) If not, is the adoption valid ?(4) Is the suit in time under Article 118 of the Limitation Act 1 ?2. The trial Judge decided-(1) that though Mallappa executed an adoption deed, no adoption took p...
Mathubhai M. Shah Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.323
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged with an offence under Section 93 (5) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 190(sic). The Complaint, Mr. Shinde, the Secretary of the Ghatkoper Kirol Municipality, alleged that the accused had commenced creating a number of temporary huts on Survey So. 31 of Ghatkoper village, situate within the limits of the Ghatkoper Kirol Municipality without having obtained permission from the Municipality under Clause (1) of Section 9(sic) and thus had committed an offence punishable under Section 96 (5) of the Act.2. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that no offence had been committed under Section 96 (5), but on the fasts ha dealt wish the case asif the Municipality had given notice to the accused under Section 97, and that the accused not having obeyed the requisitions of the Municipality had committed an offence under Section 155 of the Act and fined him Rs. 50, or in default simple imprisonment for one month.3. On the 18th January 1921 ...
Emperor Vs. Jogidas Babu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR99
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The first accused in this case was convicted of an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, in that he received Rs. 38, which were despatched by one Hari Lahanu Sonar to his son Bhila by Money Order, by inducing the accused No. 2 to sign as if he were Bhila. The accused was asked by the postman whether one Bhila was living in his village, and the accused No. 1 then told the postman that accused No. 2 was Bhila. Whereupon accused No. 2 signed the receipt for the money which came to the hands of the first accused. There was no dispute as regards the facts and considering the relations between the post office and the public there would be extreme difficulty for the first accused to satisfy the Court that he had no dishonest intention or no intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or that generally the provisions of Section 463, Indian Penal Code, would not apply. I doubt myself whether the accused in a case like this would b...
Madhavji Visram Thacker Vs. Ramniklal Vadilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1921
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR173
Fawcett, J.1. Plaintiffs sue to recover the equivalent in rupees etc. of the sums of 138-4-1 and 21-17-5, decreed ex parte against defendants by the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, in England, on February 23, 1921, as converted at the rate of exchange ruling upon the said February 23, 1921, with costs and interest on judgment.2. The judgment is conclusive under Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, none of the exceptions specified in that section applying.3. The only question raised by Mr. Wadia for defendants is that the rate of exchange, at which the two sums should be converted into Indian currency, should be that ruling on the date of this Court's judgment, instead of on February 23, 1921, the date of the English High Court judgment.4. Mr. Campbell for plaintiffs relies on The Volturno (1921) 125 L.T. 191 : [1921] 2 A.C. 544 which follows Di Ferdinando v. Simon, Smita and Co. [1920] 3 K.B. 409 in deciding that, when damages are assessed in a foreign currency, they must be...
Rajmal Ramnarayan Vs. Budansaheb Adulsaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR115; 66Ind.Cas.943
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for damages in respect of certain contracts for the purchase and sale of yarn. The contracts were admitted. The only defence that the defendant could take was that the contracts were wagering. The hearing of the case followed rather a peculiar course. On the 3rd February 1920, the suit was placed for hearing and although the parties were present, the plaintiff was not examined by his pleader but was examined for the Court. Also the defendant was examined for the Court on the 15th. Then, although each party had issued summonses to witnesses, none of the witnesses turned up and eventually on the 1st March 1920 the defendant's pleader put in a most remarkable purshis :There is now no necessity for the defendant to state anything more to the Court than what he has (already) stated to this Court on solemn affirmation. The defendant is not responsible to keep himself in attendance for cross-examination and the suit has not come to that stage, th...
Raja Rai Bhagvat Dayal Singh Vs. Ram Ratan Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR336
Buckmaster, J.1. Twenty-six years ago in the month of November, 1895, one, Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal Singh, bought three villages known as Chianki, Ganke, and Lalgara, which were situate within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau in the District of Ranchi. Together with these villages he bought litigation, which has ensued from that day until this. He found that the villages were occupied by persons who claimed an absolute title under conveyances that had been made by a Hindu widow with a limited estate. It was consequently necessary for the Raja to take proceedings for the purpose of obtaining possession, He accordingly instituted a suit which was heard before the Subordinate Judge, who allowed his claim to possession and also mesne profits as from the proper date. That judgment was made the subject of an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal and upon that appeal the judgment was reversed. From the decree of the High Court at Fort William an ap...
Emperor Vs. Ardeshar Jivanji Mistri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR102
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case were convicted under Rule 27(5) passed by the Government under the powers conferred by Section 188, Sub-section (1), of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The facts are correctly stated in the petition which the accused has made to this Court in revision. I need not set them out again. The accused had asked for permission in the proper form to build on his own land. He got what is called a model reply on the 5th November 1920 'permission refused,' and it is necessary to point out that although that model reply purports to have been sent according to the provisions of Rule 27(3), all that the Committee could do was to pass a provisional order directing that for a period, which shall not be longer than one month from the date of such order, the intended work shall not be proceeded with. On the face of it this order refusing permission was for an indefinite period.2. Under Sub-rule (4), a person who has given notice under Sub-rule (1) m...
Ardeshar Jivanji Mistri Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.331
Macleod, C.J.1. The accused in this case were convicted under rule 27(5) passed by the Government order the powers conferred by Section 188, sub Section (1), of the Bombay District Municipal Act of. The facts are correctly stated in the petition which the accused has made to this Court in revision. I need not set them out again. The accused had asked for permission in the proper from to build on his own land. He got what is sailed a model reply on the 5th November 1920 ' permission refused, ' and it in necessary to point out that, although that model reply purports to have been sent according to the provisions of rule 27 (3), all that the Committee could do was to pans a provision al order directing that, for a period, which stall not be longer than one month from the case of such order, the intended work shall not be proceeded with. On the face of it, this order refusing permission was for an indefinite) period.2. Under Sub-rule (4) a person who has given notice under Sub-rule (1) may...
Rabiabibi Vs. Gangadhar Vishnu Puranik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR111; 66Ind.Cas.393
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This case is covered by the decision in Ismalji Yusufalli v. Raghunath Lachiram I.L.R (1909) Bom. 636 : 11 Bom. L.R. 748, in which the facts were similar to the facts in this case. The licensee Yusufally, who held his lease to certain salt pans on condition that he should not sub-let without the written permission of the Collector, sub-let them to the respondents without getting such permission. Then Yusufally having died, his son obtained a fresh license from Government. The respondent obtained a fresh sub-lease on the same terms as those contained in the sub-lease obtained from Yusufally, but no permission had been obtained from the Collector. It was urged in second appeal that the appellant manufactured salt not only under the sub-lease but also under the power-of-attorney by the appellant. The Court held that there was no evidence in support of that.2. Chandavarkar Acting C.J. said at page 643 :-The real object and necessary effect of the agreement betwe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »