Mumbai Court July 1923 Judgments
Ramchandra Madhavrao Gadre Vs. Trimbak Shridhar Jahagirdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom152; (1923)25BOMLR1074
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The question that arises in tins second appeal relates to the construction of Exhibit 74 in the case which is described as a Sanad. The plaintiffs, who claim under this document, sued for an order directing the defendants to pay into the treasury every year the amount of assessment plus the local fund tax in respect of the three lands mentioned in the plaint or to deduct that amount at the time of receiving the jagiriamal from the treasury. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 456-1-0 with interest, being the amount rightly recovered by the village authorities as assessment in respect of the lands in suit, but wrongly retained by the defendants in respect of the years 1910-11-12. The defendants to the suit included defendant No. 14 who was one of the executants of this deed, Exhibit 74. The other defendants are either representatives of the other executants of the document, or purchasers of their shares in the Inam. The defendants are the owners of the eight ...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshir Framji Ghasvalla Vs. Tricamdas Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR938
Mulla, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the plaintiff for the determination of the questions (1) whether the defendant is not bound to comply with the requisitions of the Cantonment authorities set forth in the plaint, (2) whether the said requisitions are arbitrary and illegal, and (3) whether the defendant should not specifically perform the contract of sale and complete the purchase.2. By an agreement constituted by three letters the defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiff his land and bungalow situated at Wanowrie Lines, Poona, for Rs. 40,000. The defendant paid Its. 5,000 as earnest.3. One of the terms contained in the letter dated October 17, 1921, addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant, was as follows:Tenure Cantonment land. You will have to comply with all the requisitions of the Cantonment Authorities for the transfer of the property to your name.4. Subsequent to the date of the agreement the plaintiff applied to the Cantonment Magistrate, Poona, for le...
Tag this Judgment!Laxnan Mankar Kasar Vs. Ravji Dhansing Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom150; (1923)25BOMLR1027
Lallubhai Shah, Kt. Ag. C.J.1. The few facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. The original owner of the property orally sold the land in suit to defendant No. 1 on July 4, 1911 for Rs. 150. The defendant No. 1 was put in possession and the consideration was paid, but there was no registered conveyance to complete the sale as required by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. On January 19, 1920, the owner, who is defendant No. 2, sold this very land to the present plaintiff for Rs. 1,000. In that sale-deed there is the following recital:In all Rs. 1,000 I have received as consideration. By this document I permanently sell to you for the above amount the below-mentioned immoveable property consisting of one field called 'Sonare' (being) Jirayit land belonging to me by right of ownership which has now been given under oral sale to Ravji Dhansing Patil has been in his possession and enjoyment.2. It also appears that in 1911 when there was this oral sale without the nec...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Bhila Bhatkar Vs. Balaji Raghunath Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom178; (1923)25BOMLR1032
Coyajee, J.1. The plaintiff (respondent before us), who is one of two Khoti sharers in the village of Panhali, brought this suit to recover possession of certain lands which formed part of an occupancy tenancy Khata. The lands comprised in that Khata originally belonged to the family of the Bhatkar defendants (Nos. 1 to 7). Plaintiff's case is this. At a partition effected in or about the year 1890, between the first defendant Dhana and his three brothers, Shiva, Ragho and Zil, the suit lands fell to the share of Dhana. In 1895, they were put up to sale in execution of a money-decree passed against Dhana, and purchased by the eighth defendant. In 1899, he obtained possession of the lands through the Court and in 1901 surrendered them to the plaintiff. Since then, plaintiff had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands until 1916 when he was wrongfully dispossessed by defendants Nos. 2 to 7.2. The first defendant Dbana did not resist the plaintiff's claim. It was conteste...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Narsibhai Dadabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom65; (1923)25BOMLR992
Coyajee, J.1. The applicant asks this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to call for the record and proceedings in Suit No. 261 of 1922 of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Nadiad, and to order that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court, on the ground, inter alia, that the former Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. A rule was granted on December 1,1922. It has now come on for argument before us.2. The material facts of the case are these. In March 1922, at a general election of councillors for the Municipality of Nadiad, twenty-five persons were elected to hold office for a period of three years commencing with April 1. In August following seventeen out of that number resigned the office, whereupon a bye-election was held when eight councillors were elected. As nine vacancies still remained to be filled, and as there was a failure to elect; the full number, the Commissioner, N.D., purporting to act under Section 10(2) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Bros. and Co. Limited Vs. Dayal Khatav and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom247; (1923)25BOMLR1063
Mulla, J.1. After setting out the facts of the case His Lord ship proceeded : At the hearing of the suit evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiffs by Karmali Ebrahim, a partner in the second plaintiff firm, and by Chunilal Mohanlal, an assistant in their firm. On behalf of the defendants evidence was given by Dayal Khatav, a partner in the defendant firm, and by Mr. Monsey Dharsi who had surveyed the goods for the defendants. Mr. Monsey stated in his evidence that he had nineteen years' experience in rice business and that he was a certified surveyor of the Bombay Rice Merchants Association. He said that he had surveyed the rice, and made his report (Ex. No. 1), and that he gave an allowance of eight annas per bag. He further stated that the difference between Rangoon rice Europe No. 1 and Rangoon rice Europe No. 2 was that while Europe No. 1 did not contain any broken rice, Europe No. 2 contained 10 per cent, of broken rice, and that the rice surveyed by him in the present case c...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Brothers and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dayal Khatao and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom924
Mulla, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case as above, proceeded:] At the hearing of the suit evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiffs by Karmali Ebrahim, a partner in the second plaintiff firm, and by Chunilal Mobanlal, an assistant in their firm. On behalf of the defendants evidence was given by Dayal Khatao, a partner in the defendant firm, and by Mr. Monsey Dharsi who had surveyed the goods for the defendants. Mr. Monsey stated in his evidence that he had nineteen years' experience in rice business and that he a was certified surveyor of the Bombay Rice Merchants Association. He said that he had surveyed the rice, and made his report (Exhibit 1), and that he gave an allowance of eight annas per bag. He further stated that the difference between Rangoon Rice, Europe No. 1, and Rangoon Rice Europe No. 2 was that while Europe No. 1 did not contain any broken rice, Europe No. 2 contained 10 per cent, of broken rice, and that the rice surveyed by him in the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Vithal Garware Vs. Wasudeo Anant Gargate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom956
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., A.C.J.1. In this case the few material facts are these. A decree was passed by the lower appellate Court on the 27th November 1917 under which the mortgagor was to pay a certain sum within six months, and in the event of his failure to pay he was to be debarred from redeeming. That time expired on the 27th May 1918. In the meanwhile the mortgagor preferred a second appeal to this Court from that decree on the 12th March 1918, which was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11, on the 9th July 1918. On the application of the mortgagee the decree was made absolute on the 3rd October 1918, after notice to the mortgagor. The mortgagor tendered the money payable under the decree passed on the 27th November 1917 in Court on the 23rd October 1918, and made an. application for execution of the decree claiming redemption. But his application was rejected, and his further prayer for extension of time under Order XXXIV, Rule 8, also was disallowed.2. From this order of the Subordin...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Bros. and Co. Ltd. Vs. Dayal Khatav and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.67
Mulla, J.1. After dealing with the facts and contentions of the parties his Lordship proceeded: ]Under an ordinary contract on C. I. F. terms the seller has, 'firstly, to ship at the port of shipment goods of the description contained in the contract; secondly to produce a contract of affreightment, under which the goods will be delivered at the destination contemplated by the contract; thirdly, to arrange for an insurance upon the terms current in the trade which will be available...to the buyer; fourthly, to make out an invoice as described by Blackburn, J. in Ireland v. Livingston (1872) 5 H.L. 395 : 41 Q.B. 201 : 27 L.T. 79 or in some similar form and finally to tender these documents to the buyer so that he may know what freight he has to pay and obtain delivery of the goods, if they arrive, or recover for their loss if they are lost on the voyage.' Biddell Brothers v. E. Clemens Horst Co. (1911) 1 K.B. 214 : per Hamilton. J. and on appeal (1911) 1 K.B. 931 par Kennedy L.J. approv...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nemchand Natha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom105; (1923)25BOMLR896
Coyajee, J.1. The applicant in this case asks this Court to set aside an order of conviction made against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, N.P., Surat, under Section 10(1) of the Bombay Primary Education District Municipalities Act, 1918. The following are the material facts.2. In compliance with the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, primary education of girls was made compulsory in the Municipal district of Surat, from January 1, 1920. A School Committee has been duly appointed - its duties being, among others, to enforce the provisions of the Act respecting the attendance of children at school. It is admitted that by Section 7 of the Act the applicant was bound to cause his daughter Bai Parsan to attend a recognized primary school in the absence of a reasonable cause.3. On January 3, 1923, the School Committee sent a notice (Ex. D ) to the applicant requiring him to appear before them on the 9th idem to show cause why he should not cause Bai Parsan to attend a recognized ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »