Mumbai Court September 1921 Judgments
Goturam Radhakisan Vs. Barku Dodhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR88; 67Ind.Cas.253
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover on a promissory note, dated 29th December 1915, Rs. 450, principal, and Rs. 139-8-0 for interest. The defendant admitted the promissory note but denied consideration and prayed for an account and instalments. The defendant is an agriculturist. When the suit came on for hearing what was represented as a compromise was presented to the Court, under which the defendant agreed that he should pay the amount demanded, Rs. 589-8-0, and the costs by instalments of Rs. 100 each. In default of paying any two instalments the whole amount was to be recovered at once; interest at four annas per mensem was to run on the principal amount from that date until all the instalments had been paid off.2. The defendant was examined by the Court and said :-I have made the settlement, which I have understood, (and which) I admit. A decree may be passed according to it. At first I received Rs. 2CO (two hundred), thirteen years ago. No receipt is passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balkrishna Govind Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR16
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a rule granted at the instance of the Government of Bombay calling upon Balkrishna Govind Kulkarni, Editor and Publisher of the Shubhodaya newspaper at Dharwar, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of the publication of an article commenting on the proceedings in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Dharwar against two volunteers of the Temperance Committee who were alleged to have extorted some money from a Bhangi.2. The article commences:-Proceedings have been instituted against two volunteers of the Temperance Committee for the alleged extortion of thirteen annas and the hearing commenced ten days back...The Police have appointed to conduct the case one of their inspectors who merely does what he is asked to do by the police and echoes them and earns his pay without any trouble. Every one in the town seems to be under the impression that the complainants voluntarily paid the fine and that the case owe...
Tag this Judgment!Bharmappa Bharmagauda Vs. Ujjangauda Bharmagauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1320
Shah, J.1. The facts, which have given rise to this appeal, are few and not now disputed. One Bharmagauda had a son of the same name, That son had two sons Basangauda, and Ujja,. The son (Bharmagauda) and the grandson Basangauda predeceased the father Bharmagauda. This Bharmagauda adopted the present plaintiff during the life-time of his grandson Ujja. This Ujja is found by the lower Courts to have been dumb from his birth. Bharmagauda died in 1885; and the present suit was Bled in 1916 by the plaintiff as the adopted son of Bharmagauda to recover possession of the property from defendant No. 1 (the grandson of Bharmagauda) on the ground that owing to dumbness and insanity he was disqualified to inherit his grandfather's property. The defendant No. 1 repudiated the allegations, and contended that the plaintiff's adoption was invalid. The allegation as to the insanity of defendant No. 1 was not proved: but it is found that from th3 time of his birth the defendant No. 1 was dumb and that...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Bholaram Vs. Gulamhusen Abdulali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR83; 67Ind.Cas.250
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to restrain the defendants from bloking up certain windows of his house.2. The defendants replied that the plaintiff had not acquired a complete prescriptive right to the light and air of the windows mentioned in the plaint, so that they were entitled to block up these windows.3. The trial Court granted an injunction with regard to the windows of the western wall in the second storey of the plaintiff's house. An appeal from this decision was dismissed.4. In the lower appellate Court the only question argued was whether the windows on the second storey of the plaintiff's house were built more than twenty years before August 1918 when the plaint was filed. Apparently the question whether the enjoyment of light and air had been continuous since the building of the second storey was not argued.5. In second appeal the appellants contend that the plaintiff had not peaceable enjoyment of the light and air which he claimed as an easement for twent...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Panalal Ganeshdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1267
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a ruin granted to the petitioners, the firm of Panalal Ganeshdas. calling upon the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, to appear and shew cause why lie should not refer a certain question mentioned in the petition to the High Court with his opinion.2. The Advocate General has taken a preliminary point that the request to the Chief Revenue Authority to refer the question at issue for the opinion of the High Court was made long after the assessment had boon made, mid therefore it does not come within the provisions of Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act. That we think, is a perfectly good point. It is clearly intended by Section 51 that the application of the assesaee to refer a question must be made in course of the assessment, before the case is disposed of. Sub-section (3) says that the High Court should send to the Revenue Authority a copy of its judgment deciding the question raised, and then the Revenue Authority should dispose of the case acco...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaladas Narottam Bhatt Vs. Hansraj Amarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom48(1); (1921)23BOMLR1249
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit in February 1910 against firm of Hansraj Amarchand. They served he summons on one Narandas Amarchand as a partner in he defendant firm. Narandas entered an appearance in March 1920 under protest but he does not appear to have done so under Order XXX, Rule 8, except that under ha signature there are the words 'alleged partner of the defendant firm. However that may be, on the 20th July 1921, he fled a written statement denying that he was a partner in the defendant firm. On the 27th August 1921, the plaintiffs got an ex parts order for the adjournment of the suit in order that they might serve summons on the defendant Urn on the ground that the appearance of Narandas if under protest would have the effect of nullifying the previous service as regards the defendant2. Narandas has now applied that that order should be vacated and that the suit should be placed on board for trial of the issue whether he was a partner in the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul HusseIn Essuffalli Vs. D.J. Mistri and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1263
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The defendants in Suit No. 1312 of J918 have taken out thin summons as decree-holders on the counterclaim tiled by them in the above suit, for an order that the surety bond given by one Husseinbhai Heptulla, for the appearance of the plaintiff before the Chamber Judge on the 31st March 1921 should be estreated and that the sum of Rs. 2000 should be realised by the Prothonotary and paid to the-defendants, as the said Hoosseinbhai Heptulla had failed to produce the plaintiff in Court on such day. The plaintiff was arrested at the instance of the defendants and produced before the Judge in Chambers on the 10th March when he asked for time that he might tile his petition under the Insolvency Act. Accordingly the order was made that he should appear before the learned Judge on the 31st March and as security for his applying to be declared an insolvent and for such appearance the aforementioned Husseinbhai Heptulla deposited with the Prothonotary Rs. 2000, which w...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhadas Tulsidas Vs. Nagardas Juthabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom343; (1921)23BOMLR1213
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Kanga, The suit filed by the plaintiff was for damages for the breach of a contract dated the 20th August 1920 where-by the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, agreed to buy from the defendant certain immoveable property at Cadell Road for the sum of Rs. 35,000. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1,500 by way of earnest money, and according to the terms of the contract if in the title there should be any such thing as might require to be set right then the defendant was to set it right on his own account, and if he could not do that then he was to return the earnest money which the plaintiff had paid. When the title was investigated it was ascertained that the property was ancestral and that the defendant had two minor sons who had an interest therein. The plaintiff, therefore, required the defendant to obtain an order of the Court sanctioning the sale by the defendant on behalf of his minor son...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Tulsidas Vs. Nagardas Juthabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1921
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.143
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Kanga. The suit filed by the plaintiff, was for damages for the breach of a contract dated the 20th August 1920 whereby the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to buy from the defendant certain immoveable property at Cadell Road for the sum of Rs. 35,000. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1,500 by way of earnest money, and according to the terms of the contract if in the title there should be any such thing as might require to be set right then the defendant was to set it right on his own account, and if he could not do that then he was to return the earnest money which the plaintiff had paid. When the title was investigated it was ascertained that the property was ancestral and that the defendant had two minor sons who had an interest therein. The plaintiff, therefore, required the defendant to obtain an order of the Court sanctioning the sale by the defendant on behalf of his minor sons. The...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. T.S. Machado
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1200
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case are the owners of the steamer San Francisco Xavier which left Bombay for Goa on the 3Ist May 1921 in charge of her Master. At the time of sailing she had certificate 'A' as required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Native Passenger Ships Act X of 1887.2. Section 9 says :-A ship intended to carry passengers shall not commence a voyage from a port or place appointed under this Act, unless the Master holds two certificates to the effect mentioned in the two next following sections.3. Section 10 says:-The first of the certificates (hereafter called certificate 'A'; shall state that the ship is seaworthy and properly equipped, fitted and ventilated and the number of passengers which she is capable of carrying.4. We are not concerned in this case with certificate 'B', as that was not required when this particular voyage was commenced under the rules.5. The term 'voyage' is defined in Section 5, Clause (5) as meaning When used without the pre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »