Mumbai Court October 1922 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.
Ram Singh Vs. Ram Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1922
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR196
Dunedin, J.1. This case is of the simplest nature. A gentleman who has a partnership at will brings a suit for a declaration of dissolution. The learned Judge of the District Court before whom the case depends finds and it is declared 'that this partnership shall be deemed to have been dissolved on February 11, 1911, the date of the notice of the plaintiff to the defendant,' and then he makes a declaration in ordinary form as to accounts being taken, but he puts in one particular finding, No. 3:--An account of all dealings and transactions between plaintiff and defendant from December, 1897, with the instructions that the debit of Rs. 7,559 against defendant and credit of Rs. 3,133 in plaintiff's favour are forgeries and are to be struck off, and all entries relating to interest payable to either party are wrong. 2. Both parties appealed against that finding. On appeal, so far as the finding of fraud is concerned, the High Court are entirely in accordance with the learned Judge, and th...
Jambapuram Subbiah and Twenty-nine ors. Vs. Gundlapudi Alias Mitta Mud ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom104
Oldfield, J.1. Some argument was addressed to us on behalf of the defendants, appellants, with reference to the calculations, on which the lower Court's judgment is based. We have not, however, been shown how any question of law is raised in connexion with their correctness and we therefore decline to interfere with the conclusions, in which those calculations result.2. The remaining ground on which the appeal is argued is against the lower Appellate Court's refusal to make any provision in its decree for an award to the defendants on account of the improvements they allege they have made on the suit property. The suit property is part of a larger area in common ownership of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff let his unascertained share to the defendants; and the present suit is brought for the eviction of the defendants from that share, the form, of the decree being of course a decree for partition by metes and bounds of the pontiff's share and delivery to him of possessi...
Emperor Vs. Narayan Krishna Gogte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom1; (1923)25BOMLR26
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of East Khandesh recommending that the conviction and sentence should be set aside. The accused was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Jalgaon City, under Section 109 of the Indian Railways Act for having entered a compartment which was reserved for Europeans and Anglo-Indians in a passenger train. The accused had a third class ticket to travel from Pachora to Bhusaval by the down passenger train on February 17, 1922; and he entered the compartment in Question which was in fact vacant. The learned Magistrate was inclined to hold that the railway company had no power to reserve the compartment in that manner; but following the ruling in Emperor v. Brijbasi Lal I.L.R. (1920) All. 327 he held that the railway company had the inherent right to reserve compartments in that manner and convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5.2. The accused applied to the District Magistrate who has...
Emperor Vs. T.K. Pitre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom255; (1923)25BOMLR97; 76Ind.Cas.294
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. These are three revisional applications arising out of proceedings taken against three persons (1) T.K. Pitre, (2) Y.B. Jathar and (3) N.K. Powar under Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the Marathi pamphlet marked Ex. 1C These proceedings were initiated with the necessary sanction of the Local Government. The opponents were stated to be the author, printer and publisher of the pamphlet in question respectively. As regards No. 3, it was further alleged that he was also the publisher of a similar pamphlet in Canarese (Ex. 1D). It was alleged that the pamphlets contained matter, the publication of which would be punishable under Section 124A or Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The first two opponents are not concerned with the Canarese pamphlet. The subject-matter of both the pamphlets is substantially the same: and it is not suggested that Ex. 1D can be differentiated from Ex. 1C, so far as the nature of the contents is c...
Devasakayam Vs. Devamony and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom133
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge, Madura, in a suit brought by the plaintiff for dissolution of his marriage with his wife the first defendant on the ground of her adultery with the second defendant as the co-respondent. Both the first and second defendants deny the alleged adultery, the first defendant also pleading that, she was beaten and driven out of her house by her husband on more than one occasion.2. The District Judge who tried the case after hearing the evidence' came to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to prove the adultery alleged and dismissed the suit. Further he passed an order granting permanent maintenance to the first defendant at the rate of Rs. 10 a month.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed the evidence in his client's favour before us and we have carefully considered that evidence. It consists of the oral evidence of five witnesses and after hearing that evidence we agree with the District Judge that it ...
Pandy Walad Dagadu Mahar and anr. Vs. Jamnadas Chotumal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom218; 76Ind.Cas.317
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the order of Mr. Justice Shah, dated 13th December 1921, dismissing the defendants' appeal against the order of the District Judge of Poona who directed the Subordinate Judge of Vadgaon to proceed with the execution of the decree under Darkhast. No. 29 of 1919.2. The question is one of limitation and concerns, primarily, Section 14, Sub-section (2) and Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Act. To explain it, I will state shortly the material facts. The suit was an ejectment suit brought in 1906, and on the 27th November 1907 the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession in the Vadgaon Court. I understand from Counsel that the plaintiff has now recovered possession of all the suit land except a particular cottage, and that the present Darkhast relates only to that cottage. Be that as it may, there have been numerous Darkhasts since the original decree, but it is unnecessary to mention them all. It is common ground that the...
Nazarally T. Singaporevalla Vs. V.V. Kanemar Venkapiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR13
Pratt, J.1. On this application, the first point that arises is one of limitation. Under Section 10(a) the application must be made within nine months of the date when the plaintiff obtains possession. The application ought, therefore, to have been made on or before September 30, 1922. The motion, however, was not made till four days later, i.e., October 4, 1922. Mr. Taleyarkhan contends that the application is in time, because notice of motion was given on August 25, 1922, returnable on August 31, 1922, and that a copy of that notice of motion was lodged with the Prothonotary as required by Rule 322 on the day on which it was given, that is, on August 25, 1922. He contends that that is the day from which limitation should run, and that the mere fact that the notice of motion was not brought on was due to the solicitor's impression that as the Rent Suit Judge was not sitting on Original Side, the bringing on of the motion might be deferred. That is of course a mistake, for the motion c...
Sir Dolatsingji Jaswantsingji Vs. Oghad Vira Khachar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Bom72; (1923)25BOMLR726
Marten, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether defendants Nos. 1 to 30 are 'Mulgametis who hold laud directly from Government' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Gajarat Taluqdars' Act 1888 (Bombay Act VI of 1888) as amended by Section 2(1) of Bombay Act II of 1905, and hence are 'Taluqdars' within the operation of the amended Act. The plaintiff' contends that this question should be answered in the negative, and sues for a declaration to that effect. The defendants contend for an answer in the affirmative. Mr. Kennedy, the then District Judge at Ahmedabad, decided this point in the defendants' favour, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs on March 23, 1916. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff. The intervening delay is, I understand, accounted for by the necessity of adding the representatives of certain deceased defendants as parties to the suit.2. The question as above stated is hardly indicative of its interesting character. But in fact its investigation...
Ahamad Thambi Maracayar Vs. Basava Maracayar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom123
Wallace, J.1. Three main points have been argued on this petition, (1) whether the statutory rules for the election of the Chairman were broken, (2) whether having found that they were broken the lower Court was not bound to find further that that breach had materially affected the result of the election, before it could set aside the election, (3) whether if the Court has neglected so to find, this Court can, and, if it can, will, interfere in revision, and in what manner it should so interfere.2. As to point (1) whether the election rules have been broken, the lower Court's finding appears to me to be a, finding of fact, which in revision, this Court will not ordinarily disturb. It is pleaded for petitioner that the lower Court's finding is vitiated by a fundamental misreading of the rules which are statutory rules, i.e., that it is based on an error of law. Rule 4 lays down that:no candidate whose name has been proposed and seconded shall take part in a ballot.3. It is admitted that...
In Re: Ramchandra Ganuji Waikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1922
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1167
Marten, J.1. In this case I have two rules nisi before me. The one which 1 will take first is the rule nisi dated August 22, 1922, calling upon the four respondents to show cause why they should not repay to the acting Official Assignee the sums therein mentioned or other the excess amounts of the dividends received by them over the amounts properly payable to them respectively by way of dividend. The other is a rule nisi dated May 2, 1922, taken out by one A. Mahomed Ibrahim calling on the acting. Official Assignee to show cause why the list of creditors as settled by him and the amounts of dividend as declared by him should not be amended and rectified by including therein the name and claim of the applicant, and why the acting Official Assignee should not be authorized and directed to claim reimbursement of the excess if any paid by him to any of the creditors of the insolvent.2. This latter rule nisi of May 2 came before me on August 1, 1922, and on earlier dates. The main facts ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »