Mumbai Court July 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.
Damodar Mahadev Bhonde Vs. Kashinath Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom79; (1922)24BOMLR1040; 76Ind.Cas.897
Shah, Acting C.J.1. I agree. As regards the nature of the suit, it is based upon the special right which the plaintiffs claim in virtue of the Miraspatras and it is not merely as ordinary holders that they question the right of the Inamdar or of the Collector to fix the amount of assessment and fine leviable in consequence of any particular holding having been used for non-agricultural purposes. Their claim against the defendants is based on the ground that they are in no sense bound to use the lands only for agricultural purposes, and that they have got a right to use the land for any purpose they like, subject to the payment of assessment less Rs. 50 under the terms of the Miraspatras.2. Such a suit is not barred by Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. As pointed out in Lakshman v. Govind I.L.R.(1903) 28 Bom. 74; 5 Bom. L.R. 694 if, without questioning the legality or propriety of the amount or incidence per se, he asserts a right independent of and having no relation...
Shriniwas Laxmipatirao and ors. Vs. Hanmant Shriniwas Deshpande and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom39; 79Ind.Cas.210
1. It is unfortunate that the hearing of this Rule has been delayed so long as the notice could not be served. The order of this Court was passed on the 12th August 1919 on Appeal No. 41 of 1917 and Civil Extraordinary Application No. 333 of 1917. The circumstances under which the decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the case sent back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh decree are stated in the judgment of this Court. Apart from the difficulty in the way of the applicants in getting a certificate under Section 110, arising out of the terms of Section 109 (a), we do not think that, under the special circumstances of this case, it would be right to grant the certificate applied for. But the difficulty which we have referred to 'seems to be insuperable. The order of this Court cannot be said to be a final order passed on appeal. The substantial portion of the order which the applicants complain of in their petition for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was really passed...
The Kara Deniz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR116
Sumner, J.1. Although their Lordships do not find it necessary to call upon the Crown for any argument, they must not be understood to cast the smallest slight upon the argument which has been advanced to them on behalf of the appellant in so doing. Indeed, they wish to say that great assistance has been rendered to them by the brevity, the clearness and the good judgment which Mr. Mirza has displayed on behalf of his client; but their Lordships have come to the conclusion that there is no ground made out upon which they can interfere with the condemnation which was pronounced in the Court below.2. The case is a claim in Prize for the condemnation of the Kara Deniz. It has been heard on two occasions, On the first the learned Chief Justice found that the formalities of the transfer to the claimant appeared to be complete, but he had doubts, which the circumstances certainly seem to have warranted, whether the transaction might not have been a collusive one entered into for the purpose ...
In Re: Maneckchand Virchand Patni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR872
Marten, J.1. This is an application by one Maneckchand Virchand, an insolvent, first, that the further proceedings in the insolvency petition No. 11 of 1922 in the District Court of Nasik be stayed by sending a notice to that Court as provided by Section 18 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act III of 1909; secondly, that the Insolvency Petition No 1 of 1922 pending in the District Court, Nasik, be ordered to be transferred to this Court; thirdly that the present High Court insolvency petition and the Nasik insolvency petition be then consolidated; and, lastly, for such other order as the Court may think fit to make.2. The other order that I think fit to make is that this application be dismissed as being entirely misconceived. It is apparently based on Section 18 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act which runs:-(1) The Court may, at any time after the making of an order of adjudication, stay any suit or other proceeding pending against the insolvent before any Judge or Judges of th...
Chotalal Lallubhai Vs. Champsey Umersey and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom75; (1922)24BOMLR877
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit for the price of twenty-five bales of Japanese yarn agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and in the alternative for damages for failure on the part of the defendants to pay for and take delivery thereof.2. By a contract dated 2nd February 1918 (Exh. A) the plaintiffs agreed to buy from Messrs. Gosho Kabooshiki Kaisha twenty-five bales of Japanese yarn of February-March 1918 shipment, but the shipment was not guaranteed.3. By a contract in the Gujarati language dated 21st August 1918 the plaintiffs agreed to sell the said twenty-five bales to the defendants. The following is an official translation of the material portions of the said contract:-This day we have purchased from you the goods of the below written details in accordance with the bazaar rules of which you please take note To cancel or not to cancel the sold goods for any of the reasons solely depends upon you. Cotton yarn No. 60/2 ...of Japan shipment for February-March 1918 bought...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›