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.
Rabia Bibi Widow of Shariff Walad Suleman Meman and ors. Vs. Gangadhar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom651
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This case is covered by the decision in Ismalji Yusufalli v. Raghunath Lachiram (1909) 33. Bom. 636 in which the facts were similar to the facts in this case. The licensee Yusufalli, 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 Yusufalli 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 Yusufalli, 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 648: 'The real object and necessary effect of the agreement between the appellant and...
Venkata Row Vs. Tuljaram Row
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1191
Buckmaster, J.1. The real question for determination on these appeals is as to the effect of a compromise entered into on November 21, 1897, between Rajaram Row, purporting to act both for himself and as guardian of his minor son Venkata Row, and Tuljaram Row. The compromise related to certain claims then existing between Rajaram Row and his son, as constituting a joint Hindu family, against Tuljaram Row, and it arose in this manner. Originally Venkata Row, together with his four sons, Ramachandra Row, Luchmand Row, Rajaram Row, and Tuljaram Row, formed a joint Hindu family, governed by the Mitakshara law. Venkata Row died in 1871, survived by his sons, and in 1881 the joint family was dissolved, and a division of the joint estate took place, leaving the great part of it in the hands and under the control of Tuljaram Row, who was the manager of the family. In 1886 a suit was brought by Atmaram, the son of Luchmand, against Tuljaram Row, for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of the...
Abdul HusseIn Adamji Masalavalla Vs. Mahomedally Adamji Masalavalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1326
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the Judge was right in holding that the suit being an administration suit could go on even although it appeared that there were immoveable properties, alleged to belong to the estate, outside the jurisdiction, as in our opinion an administration suit is not a suit for land. It is only when the reference commences before the Commissioner on the accounts being tiled that it can be ascertained what are the contentions of the parties and whether the accounts filed together with the objections and surcharges show that there are properties either inside or outside the jurisdiction belonging to the estate. When claims to such properties are raised before the Commissioner, then it is a matter for him to decide what action to take, and even if he is of opinion that he has jurisdiction to decide questions of title to immovable property, it will be open to the parties to ask him to make a reference for the opinion of the Court, when the ally Court will be...
Jairam Jadowji Vs. Nowroji Jamshedji Plumber
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1316
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant to recover possession of their property situated at Bhendy Bazaar which was in the defendant's occupation as a monthly tenant. A consent decree was passed on the 18th of August 1920, whereby it was ordered that the defendant should give to the plaintiffs possession of the whole of the house mentioned in the plaint, excepting the northern half of the ground floor of the said building then in the occupation of the defendant as a shop and the verandah occupied by a fruit-seller, on or before the 1st September 1920. The defendant was also ordered to give vacant possession of the said verandah to the plaintiffs on or before the 15th September 1020. The defendant failed to give possession of the verandah occupied by the fruit-seller, so that the plaintiffs applied for execution of the decree and prayed for delivery of possession of the verandah, but the fruit-seller declined to vacate and consequently the plaintiff...
Dinshaw J. Javery Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR210; 67Ind.Cas.280
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover Rs. 50,000 as damages for his wrongful dismissal from service.2. It appears that the plaintiff was employed as an Acting Inspector in the Excise Department on a salary of Rs. 125 a month and by an order dated the 13th September 1917 he was dismissed from service by Mr. Arthur, Commissioner of Customs, Salt Opium and Abkari, Bombay.3. Two preliminary issues have been raised in the suit: (1) whether the plaintiff held his appointment at the will and pleasure of the Crown, and (2) if so, whether the plaint discloses any cause of action 4. From the cases cited at page 213 in the case of Jehangir M. Cursetji v. Secretary of State I.L.R (1902) Bom. 189: 5 Bom. L.R. 30 Mr. Justice Tyabji stated that in all those cases it was laid down that you cannot limit the power of the Grown to dismiss its officers at pleasure. It is conceded by Mr. Taraporevalla for the plaintiff that if the term of employment of the plaintiff was at will and plea...
In Re: Danappa Narsappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR45
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The two applicants gave evidence in the case in which the opponents were charged with murder and were acquitted. The opponents then asked the Court to sanction the prosecution of the applicants for giving false evidence. Notice to show cause why sanction should not be given was issued on the applicants, but for some reason or other they did not appear. The Sessions Judge gave sanction to prosecute without giving any reasons, It may be that the evidence given by the applicants was false, or it may be that the trying Judge was justified in merely holding that he did not believe it. But sanction ought not to be given unless the Court giving sanction has satisfied itself that there are very favourable chances of obtaining a conviction. Having considered the evidence given by the applicants, we do not consider it by any means certain that the prosecution could prove that the applicants had given false evidence under the provisions of Section 193, Indian Penal Cod...
Ramchandra Venkatesh Sholapurr Vs. Shrinivas Krishna Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR97; 66Ind.Cas.940
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree in Suit No. 91 of 1913 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Bagalkot against the opponent on the 2nd August 1913 and filed an application for execution on the 3rd July 1915. The application was struck off as notices were not served on the opponent. A second application for execution No. 166 of 1919 was made on 25th June 1919 but it was rejected as time-barred. The decree-holder again applied for execution on the 19th June 1920 relying on an acknowledgment made on the 19th June 1917 and signed by the opponent in a compromise application in a partition suit between himself and his brother. The learned Subordinate Judge said:-'Darkhast was held to be time-barred in a previous application. The point is thus res judicata, The present application must, therefore, be rejected.' He decided, therefore, that once a Darkhast had been rejected as time-barred no further Darkhast could be filed. That is not in agreement wi...
Emperor Vs. J.D. Sherston Baker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR50
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant in this case was charged with having caused his motor oar to be driven along the Queen's Road on the 27th May 1921, without having re-registered the same for the year 1921, in contravention of Rule 6(1)(a) of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules, 1915, as amended by the Rules published on the 18th December 1918. The applicant contended that the said Rule as amended was and is ultra, vires of the powers conferred on the Local Government by Sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1915, and that the same was invalid and of no effect. The Third Presidency Magistrate, however, convicted the applicant under the said amended rule and sentenced him to pay a fine of one rupee. The applicant has applied to us under our revisional powers to set aside the conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate has given no reasons for his decision.2. Section 10 of the Act provides that (1) the owner of every motor vehicle shall cause it to be registered in ...
Toyo Menka Kaisha Ltd. Vs. Chabildas Nathubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR149
Marten, J.1. This is a vendors' suit in respect of fifty-two bales of yarn being the balance of one hundred bales sold to the defendants on the 13th September 1920, of which seventy-five were for ready and twenty-five for September delivery. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs were unable to give delivery of this balance, and that consequently the contracts were cancelled. This defence was abandoned at the trial, and the breach of contract admitted.2. The only remaining question, therefore, is the measure of damages, but this gives rise to questions of some nicety which have been well argued on both sides.3. Turning to the facts, in my judgment the property in the goods did not pass to the defendants. At the date of sale the plaintiffs had two hundred bales in their godown, and though one hundred were delivered the next day to another party, I think there was no appropriation of the suit fifty-two bales to the suit contract, and no assent by the defendants to any such appropriat...
K.S. Bonnerji Vs. Sitanath Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR565
Buckmaster, J.1. On the 14th March 1910, a document was executed by Bhupendra Sri Ghosha, purporting to act on behalf and as attorney of his father, Protap Chandra Ghosha, by which a garden at Tallah was granted to the respondents under a mokurari lease, at the annual rent of Rs. 125, and a premium of Rs. 3,000. The respondents on the execution of the lease entered into and have since remained in possession of the property.2. The question raised in this case is whether the lease conveyed to them any title at all. It is challenged in the following circumstances: The property in question originally belonged to Hara Chandra Ghose, who died in 1868. He was survived by his widow, four sons and two daughters. On the 7th May, 1880, a trust-deed was executed by all the interested persons, by which the property was placed in the hands of trustees for certain religious and charitable purposes. The two first trustees under the deed were the widow, Srimati Padmabati Dasi, and her eldest son, Sri P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›