Mumbai Court September 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.
Nathalal Ramdas Vaghji Vs. the Nadiad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom456; (1923)25BOMLR58; 79Ind.Cas.192
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is one of the several companion appeals which we have to decide; but it will be convenient to deal with this appeal first before considering what orders should be passed in the other appeals. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain land situated at Nadiad was of their ownership and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from obstructing them in their enjoyment thereof. The occasion for the suit was that in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Nadiad City Municipality, the Government had, in accordacne with the provisions in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, directed a survey within the Municipal limits of the town of Bombay, and the City Survey Officer had hold that the land in question was a 'street land,' as defined in Section 3, Clause 12 under the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1001). That would involve the result that the Municipality would have certain rights...
Bai Parvati Vs. the Nadiad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom459; (1923)25BOMLR63; 79Ind.Cas.197
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this case the facts are similar to the facts in the appeal which we have just disposed of with this difference that the decision of the Survey Authority was that the land in question formed part of a public street. There is a further point as to whether the suit was barred under Section 50A. The trial Court held that the suit was also barred under Section 50A, Sub-Section (2).2. The lower appellate Court, however, has decided the case on the general ground that the Government is a necessary party, and that, therefore, the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court, and we have to consider whether the decision of the Survey Authorities that the laud in suit forms part of a public street, which is the question in this suit, involves the result that the Government is a necessary party to the suit. As we have already indicated in the other case, the suit in substance is really a suit as contemplated by Section 50A, Sub-Section (2). ...
Rampratab Brijmohandas and ors. Vs. Gavrishankar Kashiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1922
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.464
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 13,651 alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiffs at foot of an agency account.2. The plaintiffs' firm carried on business in Bombay as Muccadams in cotton. There were two partners in the plaintiffs' firm, viz., the firm of Hiralal Ramgopal and Brijmohan-das Rampratab. The defendant's father, Kashiram Bhagwandas, carried on business at Ambala in the Punjab in the name of Beharilal Bisambardas. Kashirm consigned cotton to the plaintiffs' firm, for sale in Bombay, and the plaintiffs' firm made advances to him against the consignments. The present suit is to recover the amount due to the plaintiffs' firm in respect of those; transactions. The amount claimed, viz., Rs. 13,651, includes an item of Rs. 11,000 to be presently referred to.3. On May 1, 1917, Brijmohandas filed a petition in insolvency and a vesting order was made on May 3, 1917.4. Kashirm died in May 1918, leaving a son Gavrishankar who is still a minor and a widow Bai Peli....
In Re: Marmaduke Pickthall
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR15
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is a rule issued on the application of the Government of Bombay against Marmaduke Pickthall, the 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 article headed 'The Malegaon Appeals' published in the issue of the said paper of April 24, 1922.2. The article in question relates to what may be briefly stated as the Malegaon riot cases. The original trial was held by the Sessions Judge of Nasik against one hundred and thirteen persons; out of whom sixty-six persons were convicted by him, and the rest acquitted. Sixty-four persons appealed to this Court. These appeals were heard by Marten and Crump, JJ. for several days and they delivered their judgments on April 18. A few of the appellants were acquitted: and in the case of the remaining appellants the convictions were confirmed. On the whole it may be said that in the main the conclusions of the trial Court w...
Ramaswami Goundan Vs. Srinivasan Chettiar and Muthu Velappa Gounder an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom536
Krishnan, J.1. These petitions arise in. connexion with the election of the President of the Taluk Board of Gopichettipalaiyam under the new Madras Local Boards Act XIV of 1920. Petitioner before us, Mr. Ramaswami Grounder, and one of the respondents, Mr. Venkatesa Iyer were the rival candidates for the place. In the election on the 15th of March last, the date fixed for it, Mr. Gounder was declared duly elected. Thereupon an application Original Petition No. 51 of 1922 was made to the District Judge of Coimbatore under Section 57 of the Act to have it declared that Mr. Gounder was disqualified as a member under Section 55, Clauses (2), (5) and therefore unfit to be a President under Section 15, Clause (1). On this petition the District Judge gave a declaration that Mr. Gounder was disqualified for appointment as a member. It may be mentioned that the date fixed for the new Taluk Board to come into existence in the notification under Rule 9 of the Transitory Rules was the 1st of March;...
Vinayak Shivrao Aras Vs. Atmaram Rayaji Netravali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom170; (1922)24BOMLR1308
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued as the Manager of the temple of Shri Narayan Dev of Ankola to recover certain amounts due on three mortgage bonds mentioned in the plaint. The claim was to enforce the mortgage bonds by sale of the mortgaged property. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 at the date of the suit were purchasers of the equity of redemption in some of these lands, and defendant No. 4 was the Court purchaser of the interest of the original mortgagor in some lands, which need not be detailed. Defendant No. 3 was joined, as he was said to be the Muktesar of this temple appointed by the Temple Committee. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the members of his family had been managers of the said temple from times immemorial, and that the money was advanced in that capacity to the original mortgagor by his grand-father, Shrinivas Sajroba. The defendant No. 3, the Muktesar, did not appear. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 4 raised several contentions....
Mouna Guruswami Naicker Vs. Sheik Mahommadhu Rowther and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom83
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul on an application made to him under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) to have the defendant punished for disobedience of an injunction which had been issued to him in the suit. The Subordinate Judge has declined jurisdiction on the ground that the proper Court to punish for disobedience was the Court which passed the order of injunction and that as his Court was not that Court he held he was not entitled to act under Order 39, Rule 2(3).2. The way in which this case came to the Dindigul Court was by an order of the District Judge transferring to that Court all the business within the areas of certain Munsifs over which the Dindigul Court was given jurisdiction for the first time.3. It is contended before us that the Subordinate Judge in refusing jurisdiction misconstrued the provisions of Section 150, Civil Procedure Code, and that as the busines...
Sakharam Maruti Vs. Rajmal Girdharlal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom173; (1923)25BOMLR52; 79Ind.Cas.179
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The question of law in this second appeal relates to the validity of the award upon which the suit is based. The facts are these. The defendants represent the original owners of the property. The original owners effected a mortgage in favour of one Birdichand on November 3, 1890. He assigned his rights to the present plaintiff on July 27, 1910. The plaintiff applied on July 30, 1910, to the conciliator under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for a certificate. On November 28, 1910, apparently the parties agreed before the conciliator that the matter should be settled through arbitration; and they appointed the conciliator as their arbitrator, who made an award on the same day. On the same date the plaintiff made an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Parner for filing the award, and for a decree in terms of the award. The written statement of the defendants was filed on the same date, whereby they agreed that the plaintiff's appl...
Fattechand Anandram Marwadi Vs. Umaji Valuji Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom187; (1923)25BOMLR45
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The question of law, that arises in this appeal, relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The facts which have given rise to it are these. Apparently a sale-deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants on November 20, 1919. It was presented by the plaintiff on March 20, 1920, for registration to the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar accepted it and issued notice to the defendants. The defendants appeared on April 7, 1920, and they made a statement which may be briefly described as admission of execution subject to the proviso that the sale was subject to the agreement that the plaintiff was to reconvey the property on payment of the amount mentioned in the sale-deed. He also accepted in accordance with the rules under the Indian Registration Act the penalty which was leviable in consequence of the admission of execution of the document not having been made within the time allowed by law under Sec...
Vinayak Shivrao Aras, Manager of the Temple of Shri Narayan Dev Vs. At ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.152
1. The plaintiff in this case sued as the manager of the temple of Shri Narayan Dev of Ankola to recover certain amounts due on three mortgage-bonds mentioned in the plaint. The claim was to enforce the mortage-bonds by sale of the mortgaged property. Defendants Nos. 1 ana 2 at the date of the suit were purchasers of the equity of redemption in some of these lands, and defendant No. 4 was the Court purchaser of the interest of the original mortgagor in some lands, which need not he detailed. Defend ant No. 3 was joined, as he was said to be the Muktesar of this temple appointed by the Temple Committee. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the members of his family had been managers of the said temple from times immemorial and that the money was advanced in that capacity to the original mortgagor by his grandfather Shrinivas Sajroba. The defendant No. 3, the Muktesar, did not appear. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 4 raised several contentions. They contended that the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »