Mumbai Court March 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.
The Government of Bombay Vs. N.H. Moos
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR471
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Kajiji in Land Acquisition Reference No. 8 of 1920. The land in reference was notified for acquisition on the 16th May 1916, it admeasured 3521-4/9 square yards, and was situated on the Golangi Hill. The photograph of the model at p. 11, Part III, gives us the best idea of the land and its surroundings. Before the Collector it was valued on what I may call a quarrying basis, that is to say, the total cubic contents of stone and Moorum were calculated and a particular value was given to them, written back according to the period estimated to be taken up for quarrying. Nothing was allowed for the land after the quarrying was finished. The total value arrived at by this method was for all interests Rs. 26,454.88. As the land is Toka the amount of the Government interest was deducted. Then to what was left was added fifteen per cent, for compulsory acquisition plus Rs. 500 for compensation for severance awarded to th...
T. K. Ummer and Two ors. Vs. H. M. K. V. Sankara Variar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom40
Odgers, J.1. In this case the only point argued is that of limitation. The respondent's vendor in 1903 obtained a theethu-deed (Exhibit A) which was assigned to the respondents in April 1904 by Exhibit B for a period, of 12 years and for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. Exhibit A was granted by the then female manager of the Kovilagom styled Valia Thamburatty. It is not only a mortgage but also a conveyance of the trees on the land. The respondent obtained possession and enjoyed the property till February 1906, when he conveyed it to others who were subsequently evicted as the consequence of a suit brought by a subsequent Thamburatty to set aside the theethu-deed (Exhibit A) on the ground that the vendor had no title to sell. This decree is dated 10th February 1914 (Exhibit F) in the case and by it the defendant (appellant here) is ordered to deliver up all documents relating to the suit property and retransfer the same to plaintiff free from the mortgage and all other encumbrances create...
Emperor Vs. Shankar Balkrishna Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR484; 76Ind.Cas.1035
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Thana under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code. The two accused were charged before the Additional Sessions Judge sitting with a Jury under Section 467 or Sections 467 and 109 or Section 114, Indian Penal Code, It was alleged that they had forged the will of one Kashinath Shanker, deceased, or had abetted the forgery thereof. The Jury disagreed, three were in favour of an acquittal, and two were of opinion that both the accused were guilty of abetment of forgery. The Judge, in making the reference, has expressed the opinion that both the accused were guilty, and has given his reasons therefor.2. At the outset a point of law has been raised founded on the fact that no sanction was obtained prior to the prosecution. The will, which it is alleged was forged, was produced on the 19th October 1920 by the first accused in the Small Cause Suit No. 824 of 1920. No objection was taken at the trial on the ground of ...
B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. Sakarchand Kalidas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR787
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover for the loss of a consignment of molasses. The Judge seems to have found as a fact that there had not been a theft in the running train. Therefore the Company could not escape the liability. But unfortunately the learned Judge went on to make some remarks which were not necessary for the purpose of deciding the case, and if those remarks were to stand, they might be followed in similar cases by the Subordinate Courts, and, therefore, it is necessary, to remark that if there is a theft in a running train, then the Company are protected by the Risk Note. It is open to the plaintiff in such a case to prove that theft did not occur in the running train, or that the theft was brought about by the company's servants. But if nothing more can be proved except that there was a theft in a running train, then the Company by the Risk Note, Form B, which is now before us, are protected. Rule discharged with costs....
Haji Dawood Haji Elias Vs. the Municipal Commissioner for the City of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR476; 67Ind.Cas.426
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Judge Small Cause Court, in an appeal before him against an assessment under the City of Bombay Municipal Act. The appellant is the owner of a building at the junction of Warden Road and Nepean See Road which is let out in flats under registered leases. The building is fitted up with electric fittings and fang, bath tubs and lavatories; and the question referred to us is :Whether in respect of buildings, situated as in this case, deduction in their rateable value should be allowed to the owner, for the reasonable cost of bath tubs and lavatories and electric lights and fans?2. The learned Judge has also added after the word 'lavatories' the words 'with the necessary gas plant.' But we are not concerned with gas plant in this case, and those words should be deleted from the Reference.3. Now, there can be no doubt that the baths and the lavatories are annexed to the freehold and all electric fittings are also annexed to the freehold...
Darashah Bomonji Dubash Vs. Lipton Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom70; (1922)24BOMLR479; 67Ind.Cas.430
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff purchased a certain property in Apollo Street, which had been leased by his vendor on the 29th June 1915 for a period of three years certain and three years optional to Messrs. Lipton & Co. at a monthly rent of Rs. 600, including all rates and taxes whatsoever. Messrs, Lipton & Co. sub-let a considerable portion of the premises at a very high rent, in consequence of which the Municipality raised the assessment for 1920-21 and 1921-22, basing it not on the rent payable by Messrs; Lipton & Co. under the lease, but on the rent received by them from their sub-tenants, plus a proportionate rent at the same rate for the premises which were in their occupation. The result is that the landlord is called on to pay taxes on the assessment of over Rs. 31,000 instead of under Rs. 7,000; and he claims the protection of Section 147 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act. That section says:-If any premises assessed to any property-tax are let, and their rateable valu...
Dinshaji Edalji Karkaria Vs. Jehangir Cowasji Mistri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR400
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The present applicant has been convicted by the Additional Presidency Magistrate under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50. He bad filed a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate at Girgaon against the opponent Jehangir, his wife Hirabai, his servant Jiva Rupa, and his friend Jamshetji for the offence of insult and assault. Jiva Rupa was convicted on his own plea of guilty, while the other persons were discharged. In the course of the hearing, the Magistrate asked the complainant to go into the witness box and state his grievance, and also asked the opponent to do likewise in order that he might see whether a settlement of the case could be arrived at. The opponent made a statement first. Then when the complainant was making his statement on invitation by the Magistrate, in answer to a question from the Bench, he said 'that Jamshetji was kept by Hirabai', the innuendo being that there were immoral relations betwee...
The East Indian Railway Company Vs. Dayabhai Vanmalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR416; 67Ind.Cas.852
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad confirming the decree passed against the original first defendant by the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge.2. The plaintiff sued the East Indian Railway Company and the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company to recover Rs. 877-11-7 the value of a bale of goods known as Malidas of German make which was consigned in October 1915 by the plaintiff's agent from Howrah to Ahmedabad, and lost in transit. The first defendant company, relying on the fact that the plaintiff in his letter of the 23rd December 1915 described the goods in the bale as 170 pieces Shawls, contended that they came within the excepted articles referred to in Section 75 of Act IX of 1890 and as the consignor had failed to describe the nature of the goods and pay the proper rate for them, the company was not liable.3. The evidence shows that the goods were described as Malidas in the plaintiff's account books, and that each ...
Purshottam Vithaldas Shet Vs. Ravji Hari Athavle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR507; 67Ind.Cas.754
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is when did time begin to run against the plaintiff who had filed this suit for damages for malicious Prosecution. The period of limitation is one year from the time when the plaintiff is acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. In this case the plaintiff Was discharged more than a year prior to the suit, and clearly his cause of action would arise immeidately on his being discharged, and would not be suspended because further proceedings might be taken either by Government or by the complainant in order to get the order of discharge set aside. No doubt if a revisional application is successful and the criminal proceedings are directed to be continued, then there is no longer any cause of notion, because the plaintiff is no longer a discharged person, and he has to wait until the prosecution terminates in his favour before his cause of action arises again. It was held in Venu v. Coorya Narayan I.L.R. (1881) 6 Bom. 37...
Jaishingrao Madharao Ranu Vs. Venkatarao Satwajirao Bhosle and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.728
1. The plaintiff sued an agriculturist for an account under Section 15-D of the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act with regard to a possessory, mortgage dated 4th November. 1912. Various defendces were raised by the defendants and on the pleadings all the issues should have been raised. Unfortunately, one issue was raised: 'Is the plaintiff an agriculturist?' That was treated, as a preliminary issue on which a decision was given by the learned First Class. Subordinate Judge on the 17th August 1918 in favour of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, again, a decree appears to have been drawn up on that finding, and an appeal was admitted in this Court on, the 12th June 1919. At that time the decision in Municipal Committee of Nasik v. Collector of Nasik 28 Ind. Cas. 589 : 17 Bom. L.R. 324 was published. But unfortunately, that decision does not appear to have been sufficiently understood, and it was not until the decision in Dattaraya v. Radhabai 60 Ind. Cas. 885 : 23 Bom L.R. 92 that it was defi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »