Mumbai Court October 1923 Judgments
Khanderao Vithoba Kore Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR193
Dunedin, J.1. In this case the question arises upon what is proposed to be done by the Municipality of Bombay in connection with a projected improvement of a public street. The Municipality propose in improving a certain street, not only to widen it, but to take a certain amount of extra ground contiguous to, but beyond, the actual limits of the widened street, with the avowed intention of erecting new buildings thereon and afterwards re-selling the laud with the buildings upon it. The powers of the Municipality with regard to this matter are dealt with in Section 296 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. which is as follows:--(1) The Commissioner may, subject to the provisions of Sub-section 90, 91 and 92--(a) acquire any land required for the purpose of opening, widening, extending or otherwise improving any public street or of making any new public street, and the builidings, if any, standing upon such land; (b) acquire, in addition to the said land and the buildings, if any, s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Parashuram D. Shamdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom308; (1924)26BOMLR68
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., A.C.J.1. This application arises out of the information filed by the present petitioner in the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate in respect of a default said to have been committed by the Union Bank of India Ltd. and by their Managing Director and Agent under Section 136 of the Indian Companies Act. The default alleged was that in accordance with the requirements of Section 136, Sub-section (1), this limited Banking Company failed to publish a statement on the first Monday in February 1922, on the first Monday in August 1922, and on the first Monday in February 1923. The learned Presidency Magistrate after hearing the parties made this order:--There is no case for process. Complaint dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The present application is made by the original complainant for a revision of this order praying for a further inquiry. We have heard the parties in connection with the point arising in this application. The learned Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhanand Shamlal Vs. Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom306; (1924)26BOMLR71
Fawcett, J.1. The preliminary issue I have to decide is whether the present suit is maintainable against the first defendant as framed.2. This is based on the plea raised by defendant No. 1, the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway, that that railway is owned and worked by Government, and the Secretary of State for India in Council should have been the person against whom the suit should have been instituted. Since this objection was taken, the plaintiffs have amended the title of the suit by substituting for 'the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway' the words 'The Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway Administration by its Manager and Agent.' Mr. Munshi for plaintiffs contends that the suit is maintainable against the Railway Administration in that form, and that the Secretary of State for India in Council need not be sued.3. The fact that the Railway is a State Railway was eventually admitted by Mr. Munshi, after his attention had been called to the official statement about it in the Imperial Gazetteer of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.D. Shamdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR48Bom305
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This application arises out of the information filed by the present petitioner in the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate in respect of a default said to have been committed by the Union Bank of India, Limited, and by their Managing Direct or and Agent under Section 136 of the Indian Companies Act. The default alleged was that in accordance with the requirements of Section 136, Sub-section (1), this limited Banking Company failed to publish a statement on the-first Monday in February 1922, on the first Monday in August 1922, and on the first Monday in February 1923. The learned Presidency Magistrate after hearing the parties made this order: 'There is no case for process. Complaint dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.'2. The present application is made by the original complainant for a revision of this order praying for a further inquiry. We have heard the parties in connection with the point arising in this application. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Bombay Vs. L.R. Mallandaine
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom241; (1923)25BOMLR1321; 84Ind.Cas.854
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. His Lordship, after referring to certain preliminary matters, remarked : As this appears to be the first case of its kind, we may point out that the person, who is said to have caused the nuisance, should be made a party to the proceedings, both in the inquiry which may be made by the Magistrate under Section 515 of the Act, and on the appeal in this Court. As I have already pointed out, in the present case the formal absence of the owner from the record is not material. But ordinarily be should be treated as a necessary party to such proceedings. As regards the Crown I do not wish to be understood as holding that the Government Pleader is entitled to be heard a case of this kind. It may be a point to be dealt with when the rules contemplated by Sub-section (2) come to be framed, as I think they should be framed.2. Coming now to the merits of the case, I shall deal first with the points of law which have been raised on behalf of the appellant. So far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Shavakshaw Dinshaw Davar Vs. the Motor Union Insurance Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom295; (1923)25BOMLR1313; 84Ind.Cas.953
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J. 1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these:It appears that the plaintiffs who are a limited Company were in need of premises for their office in 1920, as they were under an obligation to leave the premises which they had been occupying then. They obtained a lease of certain premises in the Tamarind Lane in 1920 but the lease was executed in August 1920. Subsequently the defendant in this case agreed to take up these premises from them. It is not necessary to set forth v the facts about this lease in detail; but owing to certain differences between the parties in respect of the agreement as regards the lease of the premises in the Tamarind Lane, the plaintiff's. filed the present suit against the defendant in which they claimed various reliefs against the defendant with reference to that agreement. It appears, however, that the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the premises in the Tamarind Lane, and the defendant was in a positi...
Tag this Judgment!Anandilal Bhagchand Marwadi Vs. Chandrabai Tatya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom311; (1924)26BOMLR63
Lallubhai Shah, A.C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case claimed maintenance as the kept mistress of the deceased Chauthmal from his heirs. She alloyed that for nearly four years prior to his death she had been living with Chauthmal practically as his wife, and on his death she was entitled to be maintained out of his estate. In defence it was pleaded that the plaintiff's husband Tatya was alive, that the connection between the plaintiff and the deceased Chauthmal was adulterous and that she was not entitled to maintenance from the estate of Chauthmal. Roth the lower Courts have disallowed this defence and decreed the plaintiff's claim.2. The defendants have appealed and it is urged in support of the appeal that though she might be an avaruddha stree so far as the mode of her living with Chauthmal was concerned, her husband was throughout alive, that the connection was adulterous, and that a person in the position of the plaintiff is not entitled to maintenance, as she cannot be properly sp...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Appaya Baslingappa Honnapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1318; 84Ind.Cas.938
Marten, J.1. His Lordship first dealt with the case of Dyama and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed. The appeal of Baslinga was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge of murder. The case of Appaya was next dealt with as follows :2. Turning, lastly, to accused No. 3, his position again is entirely different. As I have said, he has been acquitted of the charge of abetment of murder. The difficulty here in the way of the prosecution is that he has been convicted of an offence which he has never been expressly charged with, and an offence moreover which the assessors were never asked to give their opinion about. Under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is provided that:When, in a case tried with the aid of assessors, the case for the defence and the prosecutor's reply (if any) are concluded, the Court may sum up the evidence for the prosecution and defence, and shall then require each of the assessors to abate his opinion orally, and shall record such opinion.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!Macmillan and Co. Ltd. Vs. K. and J. Cooper
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom185; (1923)25BOMLR1309
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The dates material for the purpose of dealing with the point arising on this rule are these:The decree sought to be appealed from was passed on June 11, 1923. An application for a certified copy of the judgment was made on June 12. On June 30, an application for a certified copy of the decree was made. The copy of the judgment applied for was furnished on July 3, 1923, and the copy of the decree was furnished on August 8. The plaintiffs presented the memorandum of appeal on August 22, but it was rejected by the Prothonotary as being beyond time on August 31.2. On the application of the appellants we granted a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. It is urged in support of the rule that the time spent in obtaining copies of the judgments and of the decree should be excluded and that if that is done the presentation of the appeal should be within time. The whole question is whether the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›