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.
Shankar Balkrishna Torne Vs. South Indian Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.390
1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the High Court by Mr. Billimoria, Third Judge, under Section 69 of the Presidancy Small Cause Courts Act and Order XLVI, Rule 1, o! the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts are set out in the case, and the second question propounded is whether under the facts and circumstances as found, notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was necessary to be given and whether the plaintiff could maintain the action, not having given such notice, If that is answered, as the Judge thinks it should be answered, in the affirmative, then there is no neaessity to deal with the first question.3. The goods in question were consigned to the South Indian Railway to be carried to Wadi Bunder in Bombay. The goods were to be sent via Erkulam, Jallarpet and Raichur. By some unfortunate mistake the goods went from Jallarpet via Madras all along the East Coast up to Waltair, which is the terminal station of the M. & S.M. Railway, and at Waltair they were deliv...
Emperor Vs. Motilal Hiralal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR884
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was convicted by the First Class Resident Magistrate of Nadiad of intentionally giving false evidence under Section 133 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. An appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed. The accused has now asked us to exercise our Kevisional Jurisdiction in his favour.2. The facts may be stated very shortly.3. The accused was suspected as having been concerned with what is well known as the Nadiad derailment case. The offence was committed on the 12th April 1919. On the 11th May, the accused was brought before Mr. Ker, the District Magistrate, who tendered him a pardon on the usual terms under Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code; he was then examined by the District Magistrate, and stated how he along with others uprooted the raila just before the passing of the troop train. The accused was examined as a witness in the case before the Special Tribunal on the 25th and 26th...
Atmaram Babaji Chawgale Vs. Narayan Arjun Dere
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR972
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff took proceedings under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act to eject the defendant from the premises in his occupation as a tenant The plaintiff is the President of the Twashta Kasar Community and the property in which the defendant was a tenant form ed part of the endowment of a temple of the community called Shri Mahakali Saunsthan. It was contended that the plaintiff was entitled to sue alone because the Board of Management had authorized the President to give notice and file ejectment suits on behalf of the community. That would not entitle the plaintiff to sue in his own name. There being numerous members of the community having the same interest in the suit, notice of the institution of the suit to all such persons as well as the permission of the Court was necessary for filing the suit as provided in Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code. In our opinion the notice given by the plaintiff was defective.2. But we noti...
Manaji Kuvarji Vs. Aramita
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR847
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the 10th January 1918 the 1st defendant as mortgagor was ordered to pay into Court Rs. 1,20,497 and interest and costs when taxed for payment to the plaintiff and other defendants who were mortgagees. Default having been made in payment, a decree absolute for sale was made on the 17th June 1918, and two of the mortgaged properties belonging to the first defendant were directed to be sold and the net proceeds to be applied towards the satisfaction of the decretal amount. The sale was held on the 5th August 1920 and the auction purchaser was the eighth defendant De Souza.2. On the 29th day after the sale, i.e., the 4th September 1920, the first defendant brought into Court Rs 98,000 plus 5 per cent, with an affidavit stating ' as no amount was specified in the particulars and conditions of the sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered I am unable to ascertain the full amount of the decree and to pay the same into Court with this applicatio...
Rustomji Dinshaw Billimoria Vs. Dosibai Rustomji Master
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom34; (1921)23BOMLR850
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in these three companion suits carried on the business of a furniture maker, having his business premises in Narayan Dhuru Street. He himself and his family occupied rented premises in Girgaon Road. About a year ago he purchased certain premises in Grant Road Low Level. Part of the ground floor of these premises was occupied by a printing press, the other rooms were used for various purposes, while the upper floor was occupied by a tenant for purpose of a School for Girls. After he had purchased these premises, the plaintiff did not show any intention to occupy any part of them for his own purposes. But thereafter he was served with a notice to quit by his landlord with regard to a portion of the premises occupied by him in Narayan Dhuru Street, Madeod o. J. and he had to find other quarters for his business. So he decided that he would use part of the Gi'ant Road property for that purpose. At the same time it occurred to him that it would be m...
Kamawati Vs. Digbijai Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR626
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated January 30, 1917, of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces at Allahabad, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, dated August 12, 1915.2. The suit was instituted by the appellant, as the sister's daughter of one Kunwar Randhir Singh Sahib, deceased, to recover from the respondent (who, as his surviving brother, was in possession of his estate) a one-twelfth share of that estate. To this one-twelfth share the appellant would be entitled to succeed under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. This would be so, Kunwar Randhir Singh having died a Christian, and the Act accordingly regulating the succession to his estate. An argument will be hereafter noted which challenges this proposition and alleges that in the circumstances of Randhir and his family it must be concluded that the Indian Succession Act does not apply to his case, and that the successio...
Shankar Balkrisna Torne Vs. South Indian Railway and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom176
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the High Court by Mr. Bilimoria, Third Judge, under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts. Act and Order XL VI, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts are set out in the case, and the second question propounded is, whether, under the facts and circumstances as found, notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was necessary to be given, and whether the plaintiff not having given such notice could maintain the action. If that question is answered, as the Judge thinks it should be answered, in the affirmative, then there is nO necessity to deal with the first question.3. The goods in question were consigned to the S.I. Railway to be carried to Wadi Bunder in Bombay via Erkulam, Jallarpet and Raichur. By some unfortunate mistake the goods went from Jallarpet via Madras all along the East Coast up to Waltair which is the terminal station of the M. & S.M. Railway, and at Waltair they were deli...
isoob Saiba Abdul Rahiman Vs. Haidar Saiba Imam Saiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR883
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Subordinate Judge of Honavar asking this Court to decide the point whether applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits and do not require separate Vakalatnamas under Section 10(1) of Act XVII of 1920. We think the question should be answered in the affirmative. We see nothing in the Bombay Act XVII of 1920 which would change the ordinary practice with regard to Vakalatnamas. There is no necessity why an additional tax should be imposed upon litigants, and clearly the original Vakalatnama in the suit continues in force for the purpose of execution proceedings, although under the Act the Vakil is now entitled to a separate fee on account of those proceedings....
isoob Sahiba Valad Abdul Rahim Vs. Haidar Sahiba Valad Imam Sahiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom125
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Subordinate Judge of Honawar asking this Court to decide the point whether applications for execution of decrees are proceedings in suits and do not require separate Vakalatnamas under Section 10(1) of Act XVII of 1920. We think the question should be answered in the affirmative. We see nothing in the Bombay Act XVII of 1920 which would change the ordinary practice with regard to Vakalatnamas. There is no necessity why as additional tax should be imposed upon litigants, and clearly the original Vakalatnama in the suit continues in force for the purpose of execution proceedings, although under the Act the Vakil is now entitled to a separate fee on account of those proceedings....
Emperor Vs. Gundo Chikko Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR842
Pratt, J.1. This is an application for revision by the accused, who has been convicted by the Resident Magistrate, Dharwar, under Section 414, Indian Penal Code, in that he assisted in the disposal of the property stolen by one Vithal. Vithal had been prosecuted before that Magistrate in respect of nine oases of theft, and the present accused was a witness for the prosecution in those cases. After the close of the trials, the Magistrate ordered the Police to send up a charge sheet in respect of the accused. The Police did so, and in the trial that ensued the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.2. The point urged in revision is, that the Magistrate took Cognizance suo motu under Section 190(c), and that he ought to have followed the procedure enjoined by Section 191, Criminal Procedure Code. The additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, was of opinion that the Magistrate took cognizance under Section 351 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We think, however, that cogn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »