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.
Kasturibai Bhratar Onkardas Marwadi Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom172; 79Ind.Cas.245
1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the G. I. P. Railway Co., and various officials of the Ry. Co., at Bhusawal claiming Rs. 25,000 damages on the ground that she was detained at Bhusawal wrongfully by the Railway Co., and its servants, for refusing to pay excess fares on account of her having traveled in a first class compartment with a second class tickets, The facts are practically admitted. There was a mistake made owing to certain circumstances. The ladies were put into a first class compartment by the officials of the Railway Co., at the Shegaon station between Nagpur and Bhusawal. That fact was not sufficiently recognised when the party arrived at Bhusawal. The Judge has found in favour of the plaintiff. He has considered the question of damages, and has allowed the plaintiff Rs. 1,200 damages from defendants 1, 2, 4, and 7, that is to say the Railway Co, the Railway Guard and the Station Master and the Ticket Collector, at Bhusawal, and Rs. 100 from the Ticket Collector on...
Ram Bujhawan Prosad Singh Vs. Nathu Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR568
Parmoor, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which varied a decree of the Judge of the Subordinate Court. Hari Charan Mahto, the father of the first of the defendants (appellants), was head, and Karta, of a Hindu joint family, governed by Mitakshara law. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000, secured with interest at thirty-six per cent, per annum with quarterly rests, by hypothecation, of certain immoveable properties of the joint family, and executed a deed of mortgage on July 16, 1903, the rights in which are now vested in the plaintiffs (respondents). Hari Charan Matho died on January 18, 1911, without redeeming the deed of mortgage. At the time of the institution of the present suit to enforce the mortgage bond, it was claimed that there was a sum due on the mortgage for principal and interest of more than Rs. 50,000, after making an allowance for payments which had been made during the lifetime of the mortgagor. The actual claim in the suit was ...
Dronamraju Rama Rao and 3 ors. Vs. Vissapragada Vedayya and 6 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom435
Phillips, J.1. In this suit it has been found that one square yard of house-site was included in the mortgage deed merely to give jurisdiction to the Peddapur Sub-Registrar, who registered the document, whereas the property really intended to be mortgaged was situated in Amalapur. Following the decisions in Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Haridasi Debi I.L.R. (1914) Calc. 972 and in Biswanath Prasad v. Chandra Narayan Chowdkury I.L.R.(1921) Calc. 509 it has been, held that the mortgage deed is invalid as being 'in fraud of the Registration Law.' The learned Subordinate Judge has however found that the personal covenant to repay is not invalid and has given a decree for that part of the claim that is not barred by limitation, holding that Article 116 of the Limitation Act is applicable in accordance with the ruling of Amir Ali, J., in Joginee Mohun 0hatterjee v. Bhoot Nath Ghoml I.L R. (1902) Calc. 654. In appeal it is contended that that ruling is wrong, and that as the registration of t...
Nilkanth Devrao Nadkarni Vs. Murari Govind Mhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom272; (1923)25BOMLR315; 73Ind.Cas.178
Marten, J.1. The question on this appeal is whether defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have been properly appointed trustees of the suit temple. That in its turn depends on whether they were validly appointed trustees on November 15, 1913, by the Temple Committee. This Temple Committee is one appointed under the Religious Endowments Act 1863, and at the date in question it consisted of some ten or eleven members. A notice, Exhibit 39, is alleged to have been given for this Committee to meet at eight o'clock in the morning on November 15, 1913. At that hour only two members of the Committee were present, and according to the minutes, Exhibit 34, as there was not present a sufficient number of members to form a quorum for the commencement of the business of the Committee, it was decided that the work of the Committee be deferred and that the Committee should meet at 3 P.M. that day. Then at three o'clock that day, three members were present. They then proceeded to transact certain business, and inci...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Laxmibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR527
Salvesen, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated December 22, 1916, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Dharwar, dated January 6, 1913. The suit relates to a part of the Hebli estate, from which the plaintiff was evicted by the Government on the death of his grand-father Pandurangrao. Their object in doing so was to prevent partition of what they regarded as an impartible estate held under a grant of Saranjam.2. It is not necessary to recapitulate the facts which have been very fully stated in the judgment of the District Judge of Dharwar or to consider the majority of the points which were disposed of by him and on appeal by the High Court at Bombay, The sole issue which remains for determination is whether the Saranjam grant made by the British Government in favour of an ancestor of the plaintiff was a grant of the royal revenue only, or was a grant of the land itself, or of the whole revenue of the land coupled with a r...
The King-emperor Vs. A. Duraiswami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom476
Krishnan, J.1. The interpretation put by the Honorary Magistrates on the rule referred to by them and published in the Fort St. George Gazette of 28th March 1922, Notification No. 81 seems to be erroneous. The first part of the rule applies to the person who pedals the bicycle and takes with him another on the same cycle; and the latter part of the rule clearly applies to the person who allows himself to be so carried, for he rides the bicycle but not on the saddle. The word 'ride' does not necessarily imply that the person riding should propel the bicycle himself. It may be that the rule as worded covers the case of a single person riding a bicycle without being seated on the saddle but it certainly covers also the case of a person riding a bicycle in the manner the second accused did. He pleaded guilty and therefore he should have been convicted, but as the Crown Prosecutor does not ask for a sentence it is not necessary to inflict one now. But his acquittal is set aside....
In Re: Marmaduke Pickthall (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR107
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On November 13, 1922, a rule was issued at the instance of the Government of Bombay against the respondent as Editor, Printer and Publisher of The Bombay Chronicle to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of the publication of an article headed 'En Passant' containing the paragraph 'Long live our Judges 'in the Sunday issue of the paper of October 8, 1922.2. The respondent published an apology in the issue of the paper of October 11 characterizing the paragraph as highly objectionable and apologizing to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court for the offensive expressions it contained and for the appearance of each a paragraph in his paper as the result of defective supervision due to illness. A copy of the paper containing the apology was sent to the Prothonotary for the information of the Chief Justice and Judges and came before us in due course. In his affidavit tiled in showing cause against the rule, the respo...
Panachand Narsey Vs. Stanley Dobson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom245; (1923)25BOMLR161
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal which is on the face of it not competent. The facts are that one Stanley Dobson filed a petition on September 12, 1921, in this Court praying that he might be adjudged insolvent. On that petition an order for adjudication was made on the same day. On September 19, 1921, the Official Assignee reported that the property of the insolvent was not likely to exceed in value Rs. 3,000, and applied that the Court might order the estate to be administered in a summary manner, pursuant to Section 106 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The order which I presume was made on that application does not appear on the record. On April 4, 1922, a creditor of the insolvent obtained a rule calling upon the insolvent to show cause why the order of adjudication made on September 12, 1921, on his petition should not be annulled for want of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, why he should not be ordered to pay Rs. 175 per month to the Official Assignee for ...
The Eagle Star and British Dominions Insurance Company Vs. Dinanath an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom249; (1923)25BOMLR164
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover from the defendant Insurance Company the amount of loss or damage, which, they said, they suffered in consequence of the fire, which had occurred to the godown at Bapty Road, in which there were goods, belonging to the plaintiffs, which had been insured with the defendant company for Rs. 2,50,000.2. The relevant clauses in the policy for the purpose of this appeal are Clauses 13 and 18. 3. Clause 13 says:If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof, if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the insured or any one Acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under this policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act or with the connivance of the insured, or if the insured, or any one acting on his behalf shall hinder or obstruct the Company in doing any of the sets referred to in condition 12, or if the claim be made and rejected and an ac...
Muller Maclean and Co. Vs. Kaderbhoy Mulla Esmailji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom241; (1923)25BOMLR177
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendants as acceptors of two Bills of Exchange drawn by the plaintiffs in New York upon the defendants and payable thirty days after sight. One of the Bills of Exchange was for 1568. 51 dollars, dated July 2, 1920, and was accepted by the defendants on August 4, 1920. The other was for 261-19-3, dated September 8, 1920, and was accepted by the defendants on October 12, 1920.2. The defendants raised various defences with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The only question in appeal is at what rate of exchange should the amount due to the plaintiffs by the defendants on their acceptances be calculated. According to the terms of the bills they were to be paid at the current rate for Bank Demand Drafts at date of payment. It was contended by the plaintiffs that these words meant that the rate of exchange should be calculated when the bill was actually paid. It was contended by the defendants that the rate o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »