Mumbai Court June 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.
Fazal D. Allana Vs. Mangaldas M. Pakvasa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1144; 66Ind.Cas.726
Kanga, J.1. The plaintiff is a partner in the firm of Allana, Sons & Co. Up to 19th January 1921 Ebrahim Fazal, Boga, and Anveri were carrying on business in partnership in the old Bombay Share Market as share and stuck brokers. Ebrahim Fazal was a member of the Native Stock and Share Brokers' Association and the card issued by the said Association stood in the name of Ebrahim Fazal. In October 1920 the plaintiff employed the said firm of brokers, whom I shall hereafter refer to as 'the brokers' to transact share business for his firm of Allana, Dossa to Co. The plaintiff in October 1920 through the brokers bought twenty-five Central India Mills shares for October 1920 eettlement at Rs. 4,800 per share and sold twenty- five. Central India Mills shares for Moorat (November) settlement at Rs. 4,860 per share according to the rules and regulations of the Native Stock and Share Brokers' Association for his firm of Allana, Dossa & Co The twenty-five shares bought for October settlement were...
Nowroji Sorabji Bunshah Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1288
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship first dealt with points not material to this report and then proceeded :-] With regard to the apportionment of the compensation in those cases in which the claimants had proved that they were in occupation of hhati lands, in the proportion of one to the Khot and two to the occupant, the Khot claims to be entitled to the whole of the compensation, whether he was in occupation of the lands or not. This is a question which seems to have arisen, and must always necessarily be arising, in Salsette, in cases of compulsory acquisitions, because there have been a number of instances in Salsette where what may be called Khoti grants have been made in old times by Government to various individuals in order to encourage better cultivation in the villages granted, and it has come to be understood that with regard to bhati lands the compensation money should be awarded in the proportion of one to the Khot and two to the occupants. It has been thought on pri...
Vallabhdas Narayanji and anr. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.427
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Thana in Reference No. 5 of 1915. In. 1910 a strip of land on the east side of the G. I. P. Railway between Kurla and Thana was notified for acquisition in order that the line might be widened. This Reference refers to a portion of that strip situated in the Vikhroli village, and the lands in other companion References are all similar lands either in this village or in the village of Kanjur through which, the line passes. * * * * * * * *2. With regard to the apportionment of the compensation in those cases in which the claimants had proved that they were in occupation of bhati lands, in the proportion of one to the khot and two to the occupant, the khot claims to be entitled to the whole of the compensation, whether, he was in occupation of the lands or not. This is a question which seems to have arisen, and must always necessarily be arising, in Salsette, in cases of compulsory acquisitions, because t...
Krishnaji Shridhar Barde Vs. Mahadeo Sakharam Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR909
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case an award was made by an arbitrator in a dispute between certain parties, the arbitrator being appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Credit Societies as provided by the rules under the Co-operative Credit Societies Act II of 1912. As one of the opponents resided in Bombay, or had gone to Bombay, the petitioner applied to the Court of Small Causes at Poona for a certificate transferring the decree for execution at Bombay to the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The rules passed under Section 43 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act provide under Rull 34 that the decisions and awards under Rule 31 shall, on application to any civil Court having local jurisdiction, be enforceable in the same manner as a decree of such Court.2. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that, under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was only the Court which had passed the decree that could give a certificate under that section. It seems ...
Abaji Ragho Mhalas Vs. the Municipality of Jalgaon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1028
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an injunction against the Municipality of Jalgaon not to remove the eastern two rows of steps leading to his house. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court, and an appeal against that decision was dismissed on the 30th July 1920. Since the appeal was dismissed the decision of this Court in Tayaballi v. Dohad Municipality : (1920)22BOMLR951 . was reported. This case is on all fours with that case, and, therefore, we must follow that decision unless we refer the matter to a Full Bench.2. It was argued that that decision was in conflict with a prior decision of this Court is Dakcore Town Municipality v. Anupram. (1913) 15 Bom L.R. 883. But Mr. Justice Heaton was a party to both the decisions and when the latter case was decided the prior case was before us, and I do not think that Mr. Justice Heaton could have concurred in my decision in the Dohad Municipality case, unless he was satisfied that the two cases could be differentiated. How...
Gulabchand Chhotiram Marwadi Vs. Ramnath Chhotriram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1171
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In First Appeal No. 315 of 1916 we dealt with the decision of the lower Court in the original suit No. 42 of 1909, which was a partition suit. That suit had been proceeding for a very large number of years before a final decision could be arrived at; and the main question in that appeal was whether the lower Court was right in allowing the plaintiffs mesne profits of certain Nipani lands for the years 1905 to 1909, and we came to the conclusion that that order was wrong.2. Now it appears that on the basis of certain remarks made in the judgment of the trial Court dated 12th September 1914, the plaintiffs filed this Suit No. 426 of 1918 claiming to recover Rs. 16,000 from the defendants as certain balances shewn as due in the plaint Schedules A, B, C. These balances consist of certain amounts clue of bonds and certain amounts said to be outstanding as due against tenants for rents for the years 1905 to 1910.3. Apart from anything that was said in that judgmen...
Dharamdas Kaushalyadas Vs. Ranchhodji Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1009
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction directing the defendant to remove the posts and wire fencing from the lane in dispute causing obstruction to the plaintiffs' user of the same The plaintiffs' suit has been decreed in both the lower Courts, and it is sought now to get those decisions reversed on a purely technical objection.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of Survey No. 56 on the map, while the defendant is the owner of Survey No. 57. Towards the southern boundary of Survey No. 57 is a hedge maintained by the defendant, and it might be presumed that that at any rate was the limit of the land of which ho was making use. On the south of the hedge was the strip of land in dispute,. On the other side of that was Survey No. 58. The plaint admittedly is not very scientifically drawn, as is often the case. It might well be urged that the plaintiffs contended in their plaint that Survey No. 58, or at any rate the disputed strip, belonged to them either b...
Sunder Spinner and anr. Vs. Makan Bhula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom130
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We need say no more in this case than that the defendant on representing to the Court that he had not been offered the postal packet was entitled to a retrial, Service by registered post is at any time a poor substitute for personal service which is directed by the Court. It is allowed to litigants as a matter of convenience. But when sitting on the Original Side I have invariably allowed a defendant a retrial, if, after the decree had been passed against him on evidence that the summons was sent by registered post and returned refused, he appeared and denied that the packet had ever been delivered to him by the postal authorities. Rule will be made absolute.2. Costs, costs in the cause.Shah, J.3. I agree....
Sunder Spinner Vs. Makan Bhula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.386
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. We need say no more in this case than that the defendant, on representing to the Court that he had not been offered the postal packet, was entitled to a re-trial. Service by registered post is at any time a poor substitute for personal service, which is directed by the Code. It is allowed to litigants as a matter of convenience. But when sitting on the Original Side I have invariably allowed a defendant a re-trial, if, after the decree had been passed against him on evidence that the summons was sent by registered post and returned refused, he appeared and denied that the packet had ever been delivered to him by the postal authorities. Rule will be made absolute.2. Costs costs in the cause.Shah, J.3. I agree....
Gulappa Rudrappa Ershetti Vs. Erava Basanagowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1013
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff applied for execution of the decree in Suit No. 261 of 1903, which was passed on the 25th February 1904 in a mortgage suit giving the usual six months' time for payment under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The present Darkhast was filed on the 7th September 1915; and the decision now appealed from was dated 10th July 1920. At that time the decision in Desaiappa v. Dundappa (1919) 22 Bom. L.R. 76 had not been reported; therefore, there was some excuse for the order dismissing the Darkhast.2. The plaintiff sought for execution of his decree by a Darkhast filed on the 12th June 1907. Notice was issued to the defendants. On their failure to appear, an order absolute for sale was made on the 2nd October 1907, but as the plaintiff took no further steps in paying necessary fees, the Darkhast was eventually dismissed. Before the present Civil Procedure Code came into force, the proper procedure in the case of a decree under Section 88 of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »