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.
Ganpati Nana Powar and anr. Vs. Jivanabai Kom Subanna by Her Mukhtyar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom44(1); (1923)ILR47Bom227
Shah, J.1. The only point urged in support of this appeal is that the power-of-attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power-of-attorney and not a general power-of-attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this Court, which is as follows:The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are person's holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.2. We are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power-of-attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power-of-attorney. But, assuming in favour of the appellants that the words are not sufficient to constitute it a general power-of-attorney, the objection is covered by Section 99 of ...
Jagannath Narsingdas Marwadi Vs. Ravji Tulsiram Pansare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom90; (1922)24BOMLR1296; 76Ind.Cas.73
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to enforce his mortgage bond dated January, 8, 1912. The bond was for Rs. 500. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement in which he disputed the claim, but he did not dispute either the execution or the validity of the mortgage bond. The defendant No. 2 was joined as a purchaser of a part of the mortgaged property subsequent to the mortgage, but he did not appear to contest the plaintiff's claim. The first issue raised was, whether the mortgage bond in suit was proved. It may be mentioned that when defendant No. 1 was examined in the suit, he admitted the execution of the bond in his evidence. The learned trial Judge, however, relying upon the decision in Dalichand Shivram v. Lotu Sakharam I.L.R. (1919) 44 Bom. 405; 22 Bom. L.R. 136 came to the conclusion that as there was no proof in the case of such attestations as are required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act the bond was not proved and dismissed the pla...
Ganapati Nana Powar Vs. Jivanabai Subanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1302; 76Ind.Cas.34
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The only point urged in support of this appeal is that the power of attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this Court, which is as follows :-The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are persona holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.2. We are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power of attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power of attorney. But assuming in favour of the appellants that the words are not sufficient to constitute it a general power of attorney, the objection is covere...
Kottammal Kalathingal Umar Hajee Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom117
Oldfield, J.1. These two appeals can be decided on the same preliminary point. To take first Appeal No. 581 of 1922, the accused (appellant) has been convicted of various offences in connexion with the Mappilla rebellion. In the first instance he and his father were placed on trial together before the Special Judge, Mr. Edgington. But, after the trial had proceeded for sometime, it was decided to hold two separate trials. Mr. Edgington then began the trial of the present accused and, rather unnecessarily so far as we can see, exhibited the evidence already given at the joint trial, instead of treating it as given for the purpose of the trial of accused, whether alone or jointly. That, however, is not the point, with which we are concerned. What we are concerned with is that Mr. Edgington ceased to be the Judge, before the trial of the accused was concluded, being succeeded by Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson, apparently on his own initiative, decided to hold the trial de novo. He did not appar...
Fatmabai Vs. Framroz Ardeshir Banaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom145; (1922)24BOMLR1281
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The question referred to us is as follows :-Whether in spite of the decree of the High Court, declaring defendant to be a tenant of the plaintiffs at Rs. 185 per month, it it open to him to contend that he is liable to pay only the standard rent under the Bombay Bent Act.2. We are of opinion that this question should be answered in the negative. The reference has been fully argued by Mr. Billimoria on behalf of the defendant and both the judgments of the lower Court clearly set out the facts which have given rise to this reference, as also the two views which were respectively contended for by the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendant on the other in that Court. It is enough for the purposes of this reference to point out that the present defendant made a counter-claim in the suit in the High Court in which, among other things, he prayed that 'it may be declared that the defendant is a monthly tenant of the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 185'....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›