Mumbai Court February 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.
Hasham Ismayal Walad Haji Khamisa Vs. Nariman Rustomji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom57; 81Ind.Cas.463
1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the partnership of the parties in the firm of Mehta and Co., was already dissolved or should be dissolved; for accounts of the stock and outstandings of the profits and losses; and for a declaration that he was entitled to one-half share in profits and losses and for costs.2. The partnership was entered into by partnership-deed of 14th July 1915 by which the parties Agreed that the partnership was to last from 1st January 1915 till 31st December 1919. The plaintiff's suit was filed on the 20th November 1919 and the suit was premature unless he could not bring himself within the provisions of Section 254 of the Contract Act. Various allegations and counter-allegations have been made in the pleadings and in the evidence and from, these it is perfectly obvious that there was a state of feeling existing between the partners which rendered it impossible for the partnership to be continued with any advantage. The Court was at liberty to infer from...
Emperor Vs. Imam Hasan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR286; 84Ind.Cas.652
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused was found guilty by the Sessions Judge of two offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced for each offence to transportation for life.2. On appeal, we came to the conclusion that the evidence showed that the man was not of sound mind at the time when he committed these acts in the sense either that he knew the nature of his acts, or that he knew that they were wrong or Contrary to law. We held that he was entitled to an acquittal on the ground of insanity. Under Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code, we directed that he should be kept in safe custody in the place where he was then confined, and that the papers of the case should be sent to the Local Government to pass such orders as might to them seem expedient. We followed the procedure laid down in Emperor v. Somya Hirya Mahar : (1918)20BOMLR629 .3. We have since received a letter from Government, dated January 12, 1923, pointing out to us that under Section 471, Cr...
In Re: Parshotamdas M. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR282
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We are asked to interfere in revision with an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, on October 25, 1922, in which, after finding that there was a prima facie case against certain persons, he directed that the case should be sent for inquiry to the First Class Magistrate. The principles, which the High Court should follow in dealing with an application in revision in such a case, were considered in In the Matter of the petition of Alamdar Husain I.L.R. (1901) 23 All. 249. The Chief Justice said (p. 251):Now it has been held by this Court that the High Court has power j in revision to 8eb aside an order passed by a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court under Section 478 of the Code ; and I assume that this view is correct. Still, one must have regard to the nature of the revisional jurisdiction, and must not, in a case arising under Section 476, any move than in any other case, allow what would virtually be an appeal fr...
Motilal Satyanarayan Vs. Harnarayan Premsukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom408; (1923)25BOMLR435; 73Ind.Cas.365
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff Satyanarayan Dhanajishet brought a suit against the defendants to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Before the suit came on for hearing the plaintiff died and his heirs sought to continue the action. Their application to be placed on the record as heirs of the original plaintiff was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge; and the appellants in their arguments before us rely mainly on the decision in Krishna Behari Sen v. The Corporation of Calcutta I.L.R. (1904) Cal. 993, where it was held by a Full Bench that a suit for malicious prosecution falls within the general words of Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act, and not within any of the exceptions.2. In Rustomji Dorabji v. Nurse I.L.R. (1920) 44 Mad. 357, F.B. the learned Judges dissented from the decision in Krishna Behari Sen v. The Corporation of Calcutta holding that 'the expression personal injuries not causing the death of the party' in Section 89 of the Probate and Adm...
Shrichand Anopchand Gujar Vahiwatdar and ors. Vs. P.E. Boyce and Sons ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom62; 80Ind.Cas.720
1. On the 7th August 1917 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the 1st defendant to buy 2,000 bags of cotton seeds to be delivered at the defendant's factory within one month, The plaintiff agreed to, pay the full amount in respect of the said bags which appear to have been sold at the rate of 41 lbs, to the rupee, and remove the goods within the said time; and if he failed to remove the same within the same period, he undertook to make good the loss which the defendant might suffer, and treat the contract as cancelled. We confess it is difficult to extract the meaning of the words which caused the dispute in the present suit. 'In respect of this contract a total sum of Rs. 1,025 has been deposited for profit or loss, and the said deposit amount should, after the completion of the contract, be returned to us.''2. The plaintiff did not take delivery within one month. On the 24th September 1917 he received a notice from the 1st defendant as follows: 'You should within eight days af...
Sitaram Pandurang Deshmukh Vs. Ganpat Daulatrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom384; (1923)25BOMLR429; 73Ind.Cas.412
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs instituted this suit to recover possession of certain property on the ground that it was Desh-mukhi Vatan Service Inam land, and therefore could not devolve upon the defendant, who was a daughter of one Dada, the illegitimate son of Venkatrao by a Mahomedan mistress. The pedigree appears at p. 1 of the print. Venkatrao, the last owner of the Vatan property, sold it to one Fazal Alli in 1865. After Venkatrao's death in 1871, Baburao, the illegitimate son of Venkatrao, purchased the property from Fazal Alli and enjoyed the property till he died Then he was succeeded by his brother Dada who left a widow Pyara, and a daugther, the present defendant. Pyara died in 1906 when her daughter, the present defendant, took possession of the property. It was urged in the lower Courts on behalf of the plaintiffs that Babu-rao and Dada were the heirs of Venkatrao as his dasiputras, and hence they were in possession until their death, and that after the death ...
Vijbhukhandas Kashidas Vs. Ishvardas Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR431
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover possession of the plaint lands, mesne profits and certain damages. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the insertion in the Kabulayat of 1902, signed by the defendants, about giving up possession of the land was made fraudulently and without the knowledge of the defendants, and that apart from the Kabulayat, the defendants were entitled to the presumption of the facts found under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code that they were permanent tenants.2. This decision was reversed in appeal, the learned Judge being of opinion that the defendants' contention that the Kabulayat of 1902 was taken by the plaintiffs fraudulently was not established by the evidence. He was also of opinion that the defendants could not prove their possession of the suit land further back than 1802, and there was nothing on the record from which the Court could presume that they had been in possession prior to 1862. ...
Timmappa Annaya Bhatta Vs. Manjaya Jattaya Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom440; (1923)25BOMLR491; 73Ind.Cas.424
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for partition and separation of their half share in the plaint lands. The first issue was whether the suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. That issue was found in the affirmative by the trial Court, and the plaintiffs' claim for partition was disallowed, but a decree was passed against certain of the defendants for Rs. 150, being the plaintiffs share of the profits of the suit property. An appeal against that decree was dismissed. It has been found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a moiety of the Mulgeni lease relating to the land, and in the Record of Rights of 1909, the plaintiffs were entered as Mulgenidars along with the defendants' family.2. Then, in 1916, the plaintiffs claimed to have let their moiety of the Mulgeni to defendants on Chalgeni for Rs. 50 a year, and they claimed live years' accumulation of unpaid rents. The Court held that there was no evidence of any Chalgeni, But it held also that plaintif...
Dada Jinappa Vagiani Vs. Yesu Sakhoba Ugare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom450; (1923)25BOMLR494; 73Ind.Cas.402
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the brother of one Devendra, who obtained a decree in Suit No. 34 of 1905 against the first defendant. In execution of that decree the suit house was sold and purchased by Deveadra. But no possession was obtained. Consequently after Devendra's death the plaintiff had to file this suit. The issues in the trial Court with their answers were :(1) Does plaintiff prove the auction purchase of June 1, 1807 Answer-Yes(2) Does he prove he succeeds Devendra? Answer-Yes.(3) Does defendant No 1 show that the transaction was not to be action upon Answer-No.(4) Is plaintiff's suit barred by time Answer-Yes.2. The result was that the plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on the ground that Section 47, Civil Procedure Code was bar to the suit, and though this suit could have been treated as an execution proceeding, execution was barred before the date of the suit. The learned Judge thought that the decision in Sadashiv bin Makadu. v...
Vijbhukhandas Kashidas and ors. Vs. Sardar Ishwardas Jagjivandas and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom397; 74Ind.Cas.292
1. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover possession of the plaint lands, mesne profits and certain damages. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the insertion in the kabuliyat of 1902, signed by the defendants, about giving up possession of the land was made fraudulently and without the knowledge of the defendants, and that, apart from the kabuliyat, the defendants were entitled to the presumption on the facts found under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code that they were permanent tenants.2. This decision was reversed in appeal, the learned Judge being of opinion that the defendants' contention that the kibuliyat of 1902 was taken by the plaintiffs fraudulently was not established by the evidence. He was also of opinion that the defendants could not prove their possession of the suit land farther back than 1862, and there was nothing on the record from which the Court could presume that they had been in possession prior to 1862. In any event, the Court was sat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »