Mumbai Court May 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.
Ramsumran Prasad Vs. Shyam Kumari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR634
Phillimore, J.1. The question raised on this appeal is whether the reversionary heirs of one Brij Mohan Lal can recover possession of certain property which is said to have been alienated by his widow as one of the terms of a compromise of litigation originally brought by Brij Mohan Lai and continued by his widow after his death. He had begun the suit on July 18, 1895, and died on December 22. The suit was brought to enforce two mortgage bonds. There was a claim by a prior mortgagee which eventually came up before this Board, and resulted in a decree which was generally favourable to the widow, but required her to pay into Court a considerable sum to the credit of this first mortgagee. She paid this, and then proceeded to execute a decree for recovery of what was due to her on the mortgage bonds, which was ascertained by the decree to be the sum of Rs. 1,41,959. Six of the properties were then put up for auction on June 20, 1912, the widow having leave to bid, and she bought them for t...
E. Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Raja of Karvetnagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR640
Carson, J.1. In this suit the present Rajah of Karvetnagar seeks to recover possession from the defendants of certain villages on payment of such sum, it any, as may be found due.2. Both the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot and the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Madras were in agreement that the legal relation between the plaintiff' and the first defendant is settled and determined by a contract in relation to the said villages entered into on August 25, 188S, between Sri Maharajulangaru, the plaintiff's father, and the first defendant Saravana Pillai, who was the first defendant, is now dead, but is represented in this appeal, The remaining defendants claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value from the first defendant without notice of any claim by the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that upon the construction of the said contract Saravana Pillai was the owner of the villages, and agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 99,568-15-6, to be...
The Fort Press Company, Limited Vs. the Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1228
Buckmaster, J.1. In this case the Corporation of Bombay entered into negotiations during the years 1916 and 1917 with the appellants (the Fort Press Company, Limited) for the purpose of acquiring from them by agreement certain lands that were needed for local purposes. Those negotiations were not successful and on July 26, 1917, while they were still pending, the Government issued, under the Land Acquisition Act, at the request of the Corporation, a notification that the lands were required to be taken by the Government for a public purpose. That notification was followed in due course by a notice on August 22, 1917, signed by the Deputy Collector of Bombay. The Collector proceeded in accordance with the powers conferred upon him by the Act to hear the dispute, but on September 12, 1917, the negotiations between the appellants and respondents were re-opened and a proposal was made by the Port Press Company stating that they were willing to accept without prejudice Rs. 1,45.517, inclusi...
Dinbai Vs. Nusservanji Rustomji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR625
Parmoor, J.1. The question for decision in the appeal is the construction of the will of N.N. Pochaji, a Parsi inhabitant of Karachi, who died there in August, 1908. The testator left a will dated June 21, 1907, of which probate has been granted to the respondents 1 and 2. The appellant is the widow of a son of Pochaji, named Jamshedji, and has obtained letters of administration to his estate. She asks for a declaration that as representative of Jamshedji she is entitled to a half of Jamshedji's four-sevenths share of the residuary estate of Pochaji under Sections 8 and 6 of the Parsi Intestate Succession Act, 1865.2. The action was tried by Mr. C. Fawcett, Additional Judicial Commissioner, who held that Pcohaji, by the terms of his will, intended that the appellant should be entirely excluded from any share in the distribution, whether as heir of Jamshedji or otherwise. It is clear that the learned Judge appreciated the case put forward on behalf of the appellant before their Lordship...
Radha Krishna Vs. Bisheshar Sahay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR630
Phillimore, J.1. Rai Gudar Sahay, a landowner in the District of Mozaffarpur, borrowed from a joint family of moneylenders to whom the defendants belong, a sum of Rs. 16,000 on May 2, 1873, and mortgaged for it his village Mouza Kataya. The family afterwards separated, and upon the partition of their property various fractions in the mortgage became allotted to the different members. They, however, all joined in a suit brought in 1886 to enforce the mortgage, and in the ordinary course obtained a decree on May 31, 1886, under which if the money was not paid the property was to be brought to sale.2. For a time no steps were taken to realise this decree, and the judgment-debtor paid off portions by purchasing, through a benamidar, the shares of some of the decree-holders, for prices which it in noteworthy were considerably less than the nominal values. In January, 1889, he bought a share nominally worth Rs. 7,140 for Rs. 3,266; in March, 1891, a share nominally worth Rs. 15,209 for Rs. 5...
Shankar Ganesh Dabir Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR131
Buckmaster, J.1. As a concession to the urgent request of counsel, their Lordships will briefly state the reasons why they are not able to advise that leave to appeal should be granted to the petitioner, but this indulgence must not be taken as recognising any departure from established practice, nor affording any precedent for the future. In expressing the opinion which they hold that this petition ought to be refused, their Lordships expressly desire to make plain that their opinion carries with it no approval of or reflection upon the order against which leave to appeal is sought. That order was entirely one for the discretion of the Court that made it, and the only matter that it has been necessary to consider is whether a prima facie case has been made out to establish that there was no foundation upon which that discretion could properly repose. It appears that the petitioner was, on May 3, 1921, bound over by the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Basim to keep the peace for a period ...
Freeman Vs. Ss. Calanda and Capt. Yanovsky
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1167; 76Ind.Cas.433
Marten, J.1. This is a notice of motion by Captain Yanovsky the caveator asking for an order that the decree made in Suit No. 1 of 1922 by my brother Crump on April 25, 1922, may be Bet aside, and that the sale made in pursuance of the said decree be also set aside. The notice of motion states that I have granted an interim injunction against completion of the sale until further order of the Court. That statement is admittedly 'incorrect and should be struck out. All I did was to give leave to serve short notice of motion for last Saturday.2. The suit itself is a curious one. The application is also a curious one : and it bristles with legal points-points which are of interest from an historical aspect and also on the question of our Admiralty Jurisdiction in this Court. It also carries with it points of interest to all of us in this High Court of Bombay, viz, that the various matters arising in the exercise of the Court's extensive jurisdiction should be carried out in a way which is ...
James Mackintosh and Company Vs. the ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR853
Marten, J.1. I have to thank Mr. Little, the solicitor for the applicants, for his interesting and valuable argument in Chamber on a point which is both novel and important. The application is for the issue of a commission to Calcutta for the examination of witnessess in a private arbitration, and the point is whether this Court has any jurisdiction to make the order.2. Now in India parties who wish to resort to arbitration have two alternatives. They can either get the direct assistance of the Court from the outset, or they can arbitrate without the intervention of the Court. In the former case, they can proceed under the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code. In that event the present difficulty would not arise, for under Section 7 of that Schedule the Court would have power to issue the same processes to the parties and witnesses whom the arbitrators desire to examine, as the Court might issue in suits tried before it. Accordingly in Rabiabai v. Rahimabai (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 56...
In Re: Ss. Maritime
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.221
Marten, J.1. I have to thank Mr. Little, the Solicitor for the applicants, for his interesting and valuable argument in Chambers on a point which is both novel, and important. The application is for the issue of a Commission to Calcutta for the examination of witnesses in a private arbitration, and the point is, whether this Court has any jurisdiction to make the order.2. Now, in India parties who wish to resort to arbitration have two alternatives. They can either get the direct assistance of the Court from the outset, or they can arbitrate without the intervention of the Court, In the former case, they can proceed under the Second, Schedule, to the Civil Procedure Code. In that event the present difficulty would not arise, for, under Section 7 of that Schedule, the Court would have power to issue the same processes to the parties and witnesses whom the arbitrators desire to examine, as the Court might issue in suits tried before it. Accordingly, in Rabiabai v. Rahimahai 7 Bom. L.R. 5...
In Re: Maruti Bapuji Sonar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR707
Marten, J.1. This is a somewhat curious case. A boy found some property, and very properly handed it over to the Police for enquiries to be made. The Magistrate thereupon under the Bombay District Police Act IV of 1890 issued a proclamation for the true owner. No such owner has come forward, and eventually the Magistrate sold the property, and has made an order vesting the sale proceeds of the property in Government.2. It does not seem at first sight clear why the Government should get the property and why the boy who found the property and who prima facie is entitled to it in the absence of the true owner, should be deprived of it.3. On investigation we find that this very point has been decided in this High Court by Mr. Justice Russell and Mr. Justice Chandavarkar in 1911 where almost precisely a similar case arose from Ahmedabad. There a similar course had been taken by the Magistrate, but that decision was set aside by the High Court, and the property was ordered to be restored to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »