Mumbai Court December 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.
Gopal Naidu and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom605
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether hi re Ramaswami Ayyar (1) was correctly decided.2. This is not a desirable form of reference to a Full Bench, because the facts of one case are seldom precisely the same as those of another and it is much better that the point on which the opinion of the Full Bench is desired should be formulated. In In re Ramaswami Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) Mad 913 a Village Magistrate arrested a drunken man whose conduct was at the time a grave danger to the public. In this case two police constables arrested a man who was drunk and creating disturbance, but to what extent he was a danger to others does not appear in the order of reference. The decision in In re, Ramaswami Ayyar I.L.R (1921) Mad 913 went on the ground that the English Common Law which is 'that for the sake of the preservation of the peace any individual who sees it broken may restrain the liberty of him whom he sees breaking it so long as his conduct...
Dattaji Nana Patil Vs. Narayanrao Bhimrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom198; (1923)25BOMLR228
Crump, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover certain property as the adopted son of one Nana, the adoption having been made to Nana by his widow Laxmi after his death. It appears that in 1908 the plaintiff committed a criminal offence and absconded. Measures were taken to secure his attendance under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A proclamation was issued on January 2, 1907, and an order for sale and confiscation of his property was made on Juno 22 of the same year. Under Section 89 it was necessary for the plaintiff to appear within two years and move that this order be set aside. He failed so to appear, and after certain further proceedings an order of confiscation was made on October 20, 1911. The effect of that order clearly was to put an end to any title which the plaintiff might have had with regard to the confiscated property, and unless he has in some way acquired a title since that order, it is difficult to see how the present suit can be maintained. He relies upon...
Kurpal Hemraj Vs. Shamrao Raghunath Raote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom211; (1923)25BOMLR234
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A decree was passed in this suit granting specific performance to the plaintiff of the suit contract for the sale of certain land. The decree directed him to pay Rs. 12,000 as the purchase price, but unfortunately no time was mentioned within which the purchase price should be paid. As the plaintiff did not comply with the direction in the decree that he should pay the purchase price, an application was made to this Court for an order in the suit that the decree should be vacated as a consequence of such default on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has now paid the money. So that the only question is whether the plaintiff should pay the costs of the motion. It is urged on his behalf that a wrong procedure has been followed, for under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act a suit ought to have been filed in order to secure the performance of the contract or its rescission. There can be no doubt that Section 35 is somewhat obscurely drafted. First it dir...
Varisai Rowther and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom449
Schwabe, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been ordered to be referred to a Full Bench by reason of a large number of similar oases pending in which decisions of Magistrates throughout the Presidency would be vitiated if the recent decision of this Court in In re Madura Muthu Vannian I.L.R. (1922) Mad. 820. was correctly decided.2. The facts are that the accused were charged by the police in a warrant case for receiving stolen property before the Second-class Magistrate of Paramakudi. The procedure adopted by him was the following:---Witnesses for the prosecution were examined. The accused being given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when their examination was completed did not avail themselves of that opportunity. The accused were then questioned generally on the case for the purpose of enabling them to explain the circumstances appearing from the evidence against them, and they stated that they would put in a written statement. The Magistrate then, under Sectio...
The Official Receiver, Tanjore Vs. Nataraja Sastrial and Four ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom405
Spencer, J.1. The appellant is the Official Receiver of the Tanjore district. He appeals against the order of the District Judge of East Tanjore appointing a Special Receiver in Insolvency Petition No. 3 of 1921 instead of the Official Receiver, in whom the insolvent's property would ordinarily vest under Section 57 of Act v. of 1920. It appears that when the adjudication of insolvency was made, the District Judge vested the property in the Official Receiver on the 26th July 1922. The next day, at the instance of the vakil for some of the insolvents, the District Judge reconsidered his order and substituted 'Special Receiver' for 'the Official Receiver' in his order. Section 57, Clause (2) permits the Court to make such an order for special reasons The Official Receiver moved the Court to reconsider this second order, but the District Judge declined to do so on the 15th August 1922.2. In these appeals a number of points have been raised on either side. It is contended that the Official...
Emperor Vs. Nasurbhai Abdullabhai Lalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR224
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The first accused, the Standard Aluminium & Brass Works Ltd., and accused Nos. 2 to 6 as directors of the said Company were charged before the Third Presidency Magistrate with having committed offences under Sections 76 and 131 of the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913. The facts are not in dispute. The Company was registered on February 27, 1920. obtained a certificate from the Registrar on November 3, 1920, and commenced business on January 3, 1921. The statutory meeting under Section 77 was held on March 30, 1921, A general meeting was held on the same day. Then under Section 76 the Company had to hold a general meeting within fifteen months of that date, that is to say, before June 30, 1922. It must be admitted that no general meeting within the meaning of that term under the Articles of Association was held before June 30, 1922, nor was any balance sheet, audited by the auditors of the Company, prepared and read before the Company in a general meeting. It...
Harichand Mancharam Vs. Govind Luxman Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR531
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff' in the High Court of Bombay in its Original Civil Jurisdiction for a decree against the defendant for specific performance of a contract entered into on November 28, 1917, for the sale, by the defendant to the plaintiff, of certain immoveable property in Bombay. Two documents in the Gujarati vernacular were prepared on the occasion, one of which was signed by the defendant Harichand Mancharam, the other by the plaintiff, the vendee, Govind Luxman Gokhale. Both bear one and the same date, and are practically in identical terms. The document executed by the defendant is marked in these proceedings as Exhibit 'A'; the other, signed by the plaintiff is marked Exhibit 'AI' Exhibit 'A.' after giving the name and designation of the intending purchaser, the plaintiff, and describing the vendor, Harichand Mancharam, proceeds thus:I agree to give you in sale the said immovable property, together with the m...
Hurnandrai Fulchand Vs. Pragdas Budhsen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR537
Sumner, J.1. Though there its some difference between the various texts of the agreement, on which this action was brought, there is no doubt as to its substantial terms. It is an agreement for the sale of future goods, to be manufactured at and obtained from named Mills. It provides for the quantity and descriptions of these goods, for the prices at which the different descriptions are sold, and for the time and rate of delivery. To some minor and independent provisions and to the fact that some of the words are interlineated, no importance attaches. The agreement is simple and of a common type, and the whole question in dispute is whether it is an absolute contract to deliver the whole of the goods mentioned or whether the sellers are relieved from their obligation to deliver a part of them in the event which happened.2. In the text adopted by the Court below the provision as to delivery, after the words which complete the description of the goods, viz.,' goods under manufacture are ...
Subramonian Vs. Lutchman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR582
Carson, J.1. On July 15, 1908, the firms of Chettys owed to the original plaintiff, Mallady Sathalingum, whose executors the present appellants are, a considerable sum of money, and as security for the same deposited with him by way of equitable mortgage title deeds relating to certain properties oil the defendant Seedat and which had been deposited with the said firm by the said Seedat. On the occasion of such deposit a memorandum was signed and delivered to the said plaintiff in the following terms:From M.L.R.M.A. Soliappa Chetty and A.L.A.S.R.M. Chetty, Rangoon.To Mallady Sabhalingum, Rangoon. dated Rangoon, the 15th July, 1908.DEAR SIR,We hand yon herewith title deeds relating to fifth class Lob, No. 78, 79 and 80, Block E, each measuring '25 by 50 with building thereon belonging to Saleman Ahmed Seedat, also his promissory note for rupees sixty-three thousand (Rs. 63,000) due us, this please hold as security against advances made to us; we also hand you second mortgage executed in...
Kamulammal Vs. T.B.K. Visvanathaswami Naicker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR577
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated October 26, 1915, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which varied a decree dated October 14, 1905, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura.2. The case started as far back as April 25, 1902, and is one of much detail in which numerous issues have been raised; but the points now in contest have been reduced to two, and it will only be necessary to set forth so much of the complicated story as relates to them.3. In December, 1888, Kamaraja Pandiya Naicker, the Zemindar of Bodinaickenur, a Sudra by caste, died, and there survived him (among others) his illegitimate son the original plaintiff in the suit, his wife the original first defendant, his daughter the second defendant, and certain collateral agnates who are parties to the suit. Re left no legitimate male issue. The appellant set up a paper-writing as her husband's last will. Both Courts have held it not proved. Though this finding has been questioned in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »