Mumbai Court January 1923 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.
Laxmichand Javermal Vs. the Municipal Committee of Nandurbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom413; 74Ind.Cas.205
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant, Municipality claiming Rs. 60-4-6, being the amount charged by the Municipality, by way of Octroi duty on cloth over and above what it was under the law entitled to levy. It is admitted that Section 167 of the District Municipal Act applied, and, therefore, the first five items sued for are beyond time. Shortly put, the Municipality claimed to charge on the plaintiff's goods, which were bales of cloth, an ad valorem rate on the value of the goods according to the present value and not according to the value appearing in the schedule of rates. The OctroiSchedule is divided into 3 columns in the first column are the names of various articles; in the second column is the rate per cart-load; and in the third column is the weight in maunds or price. The cartload is to be reckoned at 16 maunds of 40 pakka seers. 'Cloth' comes under class VII as cloth of all sorts and articles made of cotton, silk and wool, the rate pe...
Shankar Mahableshwar Bhatt and anr. Vs. Manjunath Subba Balgya and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom298; 74Ind.Cas.298
1. We think the decree of the Trial Court must be restored. The learned Judge was of opinion that the 2nd defendant did not prove that, according to the terms of the Will of his father, defendant No. 3 was not entitled to any share in the plaint property. The Will, no doubt, standing by itself, is one which it would be very difficult to construe according to English ideas, but it was clearly intended that if Venkatesh behaved himself well, he should get half the share in his father's property. But the evidence shows that whatever Venkatesh's conduct may have been at the time the Will was written, he was living in amity with his brother, and presumably with his father at the time the father died. The Judge says: 'It appears from the evidence of Exhibit 39 a witness for defendant No. 2 that after the death of the testator which took place immediately after the date of the Will the two brothers lived in amity for 2 or 3 years. There is no evidence to say that during this period defendant ...
Patel Ambaram Kuberdas Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom416; 74Ind.Cas.196
1. We think the District Judge was right in holding that the suit was barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, X of 1876. The laintiff having purchased certain property from one Kasam Punja made an application to the Collector, which must have been due to the fact that he could not get possession of the property which he thought he had purchased. The Collector replied that as Kasam Punja, the plaintiff's vendor, had not proved his ownership at the time of the Suburban Survey inquiry, it washeld to be Government land. Therefore, the application had held a right for the said land and asked for a sanad in respect of the same could not hold good because the land, was Government laud. That refusal to grant a sanad was the cause of action on which the plaintiff relies when he filed this suit.2. It is also clear from the notice he gave to the Secretary of State under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the notice was given because his application -to the Collec...
G.i.P. Railway Vs. Himatlal Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom389; (1923)25BOMLR350; 73Ind.Cas.606
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff's sued the South Indian Railway Company and G.I.P. Railway Company for damages in respect of short delivery of certain tins of oil which were delivered to the South Indian Railway Company, at Erode Railway Station for carriage to Baroda. When the train arrived at Kalyan, it was found that the waggon which contained the plaintiffs' goods was open and seventeen tins were missing. The plaintiffs signed the Risk Note B, and in order to recover the plaintiffs had to prove that the loss was due to theft by or to the wilful neglect of the company's servants, transport agents or carriers employed by them before, during and after transit over the said railway or other railway lines working in connection therewith or by any other transport agency or agencies employed by them respectively for the carriage of the whole or any part of the said consignment: provided that the term 'wilful neglect' could not be held to include fire, robbery from a running trai...
Devchand Chatraji Vs. Jamshedji Shapurji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom369; (1923)25BOMLR354
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Sorabji Rustomji and Jamshedji Shapurji signed an entry in the plaintiff's book to the effect that they had borrowed Re. 599 which they promised to pay. Payments were made on account which appeared in the handwriting of Sorabji, with the signature of Jamshedji Shapurji added The plaintiff relied upon these entries as saving limitation under Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Judge held that the claim against Jamshedji, the first defendant in the suit, was time-barred, and that although he was present at the time when the payments were made, still as he had not himself written the fact that he made the payment, the payment could be of no use against him as part-payment in his own hand. If that view were correct, then it would be, in my opinion, a very startling interpretation of the law. Where two persons are liable on a debt embodied in a Khata and they make payments towards satisfaction of the debt, then it would be absurd to suppose t...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Chellasami Venkatratna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom488
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. In this case claim was made for water cess. The assessee paid under protest, gave notice claiming the amount he paid and commenced this suit seven months after the payment but within eight months of it. It is contended by the Crown that the suit is barred by limitation under Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act (II of 1864). That section runs thus:Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent parties deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act from applying to the Civil Courts for redress : provided that Civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit instituted by such parties for any such cause of action unless such suit shall be instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose.2. I will assume that that section applies to cases arising out of the collection or imposition of cess under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act (VII of 1865). By Article 16 of the Limitation Act a period of one y...
Madhavrao Visvanath Nimalkar Vs. Shrikrishan Govindrao Kirtikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.517
1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Small Cause Court, Bombay, (alleging that he had been betrothed to the defendant's daughter; that according to the custom he gave at the time of betrothal two Lugadas one polka and a gold ring of the aggregate value of Rs. 54, and spent Rs. 30 over and above the value of these articles. Eventually the defendant said he would not celebrate the marriage of his daughter with the plaintiff, hence the suit.2. The Trial Court held that the suit was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 19(q) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, treating it as a suit for compensation for breach of promise of marriage. Such a suit in England is brought against a party who has failed to perform a promise to marry. A suit for the return of ornaments presented by custom by the prospective bridegroom at the time of betrothal is a suit of an entirely different nature. We see no reason why we should hold that it is a suit for compensation for ...
Parbhubhai Morar Vs. Bai Lalita and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom304; 76Ind.Cas.555
1. The plaintiff brought this suit against three defendants to recover Rs. 950 being the amount of principal due on a promissory-note dated the 30th November 1921. Admittedly, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are minors and did not, and could not, make themselves liable on the promissory-note, although as a matter of fact the 2nd defendant signed for his sister. The promissory-note recites that the minor's father Keshavram Parbhuram had taken Rs. 200 and their mother had taken Rs. 300 to institute a suit in a Court. At the date of the note Rs. 627 1/2 were due on those loans. On the day of the note Bai Lalita had taken Rs. 300 to engage another Pleader. The promissory-note was signed for the total Rs. 927 1/2. Then follow the words: 'I had to take these rupees because I conduct a suit in the Court as the guardian of minors named Thakordas and Shankarlal, and I shall pay you the rupees of this promissory-note with interest at one per cent. per mensem whenever you will demand the same.'2. The sui...
The Bandra City Municipality Vs. Dr. D.A. D'Month
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom407; 76Ind.Cas.478
1. The plaintiff sued to restrain the defendant bya permanent injunction from pulling down any walls or other parts of the house No. 167 mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The defendant Municipality had given notice to the plaintiff that the house was in a dilapidated condition, and after certain correspondence the Municipality agreed to the proposal of the plaintiff that the wall of the house on the west ana east should he reconstructed and the damaged wood work renewed, ana permission to carry out the proposed alteration was given. The defendant contested the fact that permission had been given to the plaintiff to erect the eastern and western walls from the foundation; and that was one of the issues upon which the parties went to trial. It was found that permission had been granted. So far, the plaintiff succeeded. But with regard to the southern wall, it was never suggested that permission had been given, or even been asked for, to erect a wall from its foundation, and it was ...
Maniram Peerchand Marwadi and anr. Vs. Vithu Ramji Patel Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom371; 76Ind.Cas.549
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The decree in this case is a small cause decree and is ordinarily executable by that Court. In 1917 it was sought to be executed against the immoveable property of the defendants and so the darkhast was entered as a regular darkhast on the ordinary side of the Court. There might be a certain amount of confusion as the same Subordinate Judge was invested with Small Cause Court powers. But it was only as a Subordinate Judge and not ase Small Cause Court Judge that he could execute the decree against immoveable property. The decree was transferred from one Court to the other. After the sale was held by the Collector and then amount realised was paid to the decree-holders, the darkhast was struck off, copy of the decree was taken back by the decree- holders and the result of the execution proceedings was entered in the Small Cause Suit Register. When the plaintiff sought again to execute the decree by the darkhast now before us, the Subordinate Judge held that the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »