Mumbai Court December 1923 Judgments
Raghunath Prasad Vs. Sarju Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR595
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated November 9, 1920, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which varied a decree, dated September 25, 1917, of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah.2. The suit is for recovery of the amount of principal and interest due by the appellant to the respondents (the plaintiffs) under a mortgage of late May 27, 1910. The Subordinate Judge gave decree in the mortgage suit but only allowed simple interest. The High Court allowed compound interest.3. The substantial question raised on the appeal is whether the appellant, in the circumstances proved in the case, fell within the protective provisions of Section 2 of the Indian Contract (Amendment) Act, 1899. It may be convenient to set that section out in full:--2. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is hereby repealed, and the following is substituted therefor, namely:--16.--(1) A contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such th...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Bombay Vs. Ismail Ahmed Hafiz Moosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom362; (1924)26BOMLR227
Mulla J.1. [After setting out the facts as above the judgment proceeded.--] As regards the situation of the property it may be observed that though there is a good view of the sea from the southern side of the property, there is on the opposite side of the road a range of servants' quarters attached to the residence of H.H. the Gaekwar.2. Before me the claimant's surveyor put in a valuation on a rental basis. He estimated the rents at Rs. 608 per month and he valued the vacant land at Rs. 50 per square yard. Mr. Kanga also adopted the same basis. Mr. Patel, surveyor for claimant, sought to support his value of vacant land by capitalising the ground rent of three plots of land situated at Varli Point. As regards rents he relied upon the rents derived from the building built on one of the said three plots. Counsel for Government contended that having regard to the situation of the said three plots and the character of the said building it was impossible to compare the property in referen...
Tag this Judgment!Macmillan and Company Ltd. Vs. K. and J. Cooper
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR292
Atkinson, J.1. The action out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the appellants to restrain the respondents K. and J. Cooper, a firm carrying on in Bombay the trade and business of publishers of educational books, from printing, distributing or otherwise disposing of copies of a certain book published by them hereinafter described, and to recover damages and other relief. The ground on which this relief was claimed was that the appellants were entitled to the copyright of a certain book entitled 'Plutarch's Life of Alexander. Sir Thomas North's Translation. Edited for Schools by H.W.M. Parr, M.A.,' and that the respondents by the publication subsequently in the year 1918 of their aforesaid book entitled 'Plutarch's Life of Alexander the Great. North's Translation, edited with Introduction, Marginalia, Notes and Summary by A. Darby, M.A.,' had infringed the copyright to which the appellants were entitled in the earlier compilation.2. The text of the appellants' book consiste...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Valli Asmal Vs. Valli Asmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom324; (1924)26BOMLR171; 79Ind.Cas.723
Pratt, J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent arises under the following circumstances:--2. The appellant who is the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Broach, and that suit was determined by the judgment given in terms of an award between the parties. An appeal was filed against the decree made on this judgment, and that appeal was summarily dismissed by Macleod C.J. on the ground that no appeal lay. From that summary dismissal this appeal under the Letters Patent was admitted by us and being conscious of the fact that the decree appealed against was not in excess of the award we directed that the appeal should be admitted as an appeal against an order either under Section 104(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Order XLIII Rule 1 (m) of the same Code. That order was evidently made under the impression that the award had been made without the intervention of the Court. It now appears that the order was made o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Moti Khoda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom335; (1924)26BOMLR113
Pratt, J.1. The accused and the deceased were Bhils, who lived with their families in adjacent -houses in the village of Visrampura.2. On February 23, 1923, both the accused and the deceased with their wornan-kind went from Visrampura to the village of Sandheli in order to do some shopping. After the shopping the women came home-but aceeused and deceased remained behind to drink. They both drank and that is deposed to by the liquor shop-keeper Ganesh Harakha Ex. No. 7. They were both seen drunk and quarrelling in Sandheli. This quarrelling was deposed to by the witness J)adamia Nauumia Ex. 9, who saw them between the Musjid and his house. The accused had bought a pair of shoes, and witness Ex. 9 saw the deceased snatch the shoes from him, and when the accused asked for the return of the shoes the deceased told that he would not return them unless accused supplied him with more liquor. This was the occasion of the quarrel, and there is curious corroboration of this in the fact that this...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Chandrabhan Vs. Tulsi Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom219; (1924)26BOMLR118
Marten, J.1. In this case the following questions have been referred to us as a Full Bench for decision, viz:--(1) Whether the extension of Sections 2 and 20 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to the District of Khandesh is sufficient to make a person an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2, if that person by himself or by his servants or by his tenants earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture carried on within the limits of the District or ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour within those limits?(2) If not, whether the further extension of the provisions of Chapters V, VI and VII so far as they relate to Village Munsiff's and Conciliators is sufficient to constitute such a person an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2?2. The Act, as now in force, after reciting in the preamble that 'it is expedient to relieve the agricultural classes in certain parts of the Dekkhan from indebtedness,' enacts in Section 1 as follows:--This Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Hargopal Vs. Kishanchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR586
Phillimore, J.1. One Mahanand-ram Puranmal, many years ago, opened a shop in Hyderabad in the dominions of the Nizam and carried on a considerable business, which has been continued to this day by his descendants under his name as the name of the firm. He also founded two temples within the dominions of the Nizam, and a third in British India, not however--and this is important--within the District of Berar, Three jagir villages, one within the Nizam dominions and two within British India and the District of Berar, were subsequently granted by Government for the support of the worship in these temples.2. Puranmal was succeeded by his son Premsukh, who had three sons, Ramgopal, Hargopal and Chimanram. The family, however, has remained undivided, and the business and landed property have remained in common.3. Hargopal seems to have died before his father Premsukh; and on the death of the latter, Hargopal's son, Bam Lal, the present appellant, took up the management of the temples, the th...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Vithal Oltikar Vs. Hari Ramkrishna Oltikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom318; (1924)26BOMLR218
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The question which arises in these applications under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to contribution against the defendants with regard to the amount of costs which he had paid in a suit filed by one Krishnaji Mahadeo Ghate for possession by partition of his one-sixth share in certain property against the petitioner and his brothers, all of whom had to pay plaintiff's costs in those proceedings. The present plaintiff now seeks to recover by contribution from his co-defendants their shares in the costs in that suit, which he had paid to the successful plaintiff.2. The learned Judge relying on the decision in Mulla Singh v. Jagannath Singh I.L.R. (1910) All. 585 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. He thought all the defendants were equally guilty in defending the proceeding brought by Krishnaji Mahadeo, and therefore, according to the principle laid down in that case, the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Kalianmal Tillockchand Vs. Dharamsey Jetha and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom330; (1924)26BOMLR141
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in Appeal No.57 of 1923 is the owner of a godown hearing No. 2 situate at Soni Lane. It was in Ms possession from 1916 to April 1920. On May 1, 1920, the plaintiff first let the premises to the defendants for seven months at a rental of Rs. 18000, which was equivalent to Rs. 2, 571-6-10 a month. On December 1, 1920, he let the go-down to the defendants for a year at a rent of Rs. 1000 per month. At the end of that period the plaintiff filed a suit in the High Court against the defendants to eject them on the ground that he required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. As the defendants filed a written statement, the hearing of the suit was delayed. When the suit came on for hearing, the plaintiff's circumstances had so changed that he no longer required the premises for his own use and occupation, and he gave up that contention, which was a true contention at the time the suit was filed. A settlement was then arrived...
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Sanvirappa Mensinkai Vs. Chanbasappa Mallappa Bhusad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom305; (1924)26BOMLR153
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed ex parte against the defendants for Rs. 3000 and costs on October 22, 1921, by the Joint Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. The defendants were described in the plaint as being occupied in business. When the plaintiff applied for execution, the first defendant asked to be allowed instalments on the ground that ho was an agriculturist at the date of the decree. The Subordinate Judge said: 'The defendant is not an agriculturist in the decree. I cannot grant him instalments.' The learned District Judge upheld the order on the ground that the decision of this Court in Devu v. Revappa : (1922)24BOMLR370 was applicable. All that that case decided was that the Court cannot under the provisions of Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act grant instalments under a decree to a person who at the time the decree was passed was not, but has since become, an agriculturist. What the defendant sought to prove was that he was an agric...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »