Mumbai Court August 1923 Judgments
Suklya Jairam Patil Vs. Suklal Motichand Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom169; (1923)25BOMLR1214
Crump, J.1. The point for our decision in the present case is substantially this, whether a decree made under the provisions of Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act is a decree-nisi requiring to be made final. The matter arises in this way. In 1897, the father of the first defendant and another mortgaged certain property for Rs. 125 to the plaintiff, In 1910, the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 250 upon this mortgage. On March 27, 1911, a decree was passed in plaintiff's favour in the following terms:-Defendants to pay Rs. 182 and cost to plaintiff within six months from this (Sic), and in default plaintiff to apply to the Court for an order for sale of defendant's interest in the mortgaged property under Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The time allowed for payment expired on September 27, 1911, and from that date onwards at intervals of three years various applications were made by the plaintiff to the Court for the purpose of the execution of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Pratapgavri Vs. Mulshankar Premchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom353; (1924)26BOMLR269
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff has tiled this suit for a declaration that she, as the heir of her deceased husband, is entitled to all the properties left by him and that Bai Premcore, her mother-in-law, had no right or interest in the estate left by her son except that of maintenance and residence and for a declaration that the deed of settlement made by Premcore is null and void and does not affect the plaintiff's interest in her husband's estate; and that the first defendant has no right or interest therein as a trustee and in the alternative for a declaration that Bai Premcore had no right to fix the amount of her maintenance and the amount so fixed is not binding on her.2. It appears that the plaintiff was married to one Maganlal Uhelabhai in the year 1915 when she was about twelve years old and Maganlal Ghelabhai died on October 27, 1916, leaving him surviving the plaintiff his childless widow and a mother named Bai Premcorebai. There is no dispute that the plaintiff should have been...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Shankar Paranjpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom184; (1923)25BOMLR1089
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Acting Third Presidency Magistrate under Section 432, Criminal Procedure Code. The question of law referred for our decision is formulated in this manner:Whether it must be established (1) that accused No. 2 levied a fixed commission, irrespective of the result of the gaming or (2) that at the outside he manipulated the conditions in such a manner that he cannot possibly lose.2. The reference arises out of a, case under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act IV of 1887, as amended by later Acts including; the recent Act of 1922. The learned Magistrate has found that no presumption under Section 7 of the Act can be made in this case. The prosecution has to prove the existence of a 'common gaming-house' as a fact in this case. A 'common gaminghouse' let thus defined in the Act:Common gaming-house' means a house, room or place in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occu...
Tag this Judgment!Shivbasapa Ningapa Tulagi Vs. Balapa Basapa Balki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom172; (1923)25BOMLR1209
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The few facts which are necessary to understand the point which has been raised in support of this appeal are these. The plaintiff's father effected a mortgage on May 13, 1896, in favour of the defendant's father of the property in suit for Rs. 200. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of his father's death. The mother of the plaintiff as his guardian purported to sell the property on December 14, 1907, to the defendant's father for Rs. 220, of which Rs. 200 represented the amount of the mortgage of 1896. The plaintiff attained majority in June 1915; and more than three years after that lie tiled the present suit on November 16, 1919, to redeem the mortgage of May 12, 1896, and also the mortgage of December 14, 1907. He alleged that the transaction of December 14, 1907, was in reality a mortgage, and he claimed to be able to show that in virtue of his status as an agriculturist under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The defendan...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Advocate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom903
Walter Salis Schwahe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. A was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn in January 1913. He was admitted as an Advocate of this Court under the rule which includes among qualifications for such admission a call to the Bar in England. After his call to the Bar he remained in England for some time and practised there.2. Unfortunately he became involved in matrimonial disputes arising out of his relations with two English ladies, one of whom he married and with the other of whom he went through a form of marriage. According to him it was valid under the Muhammadan Law, but it was clearly invalid according to the Law of England. It was alleged by the first of these ladies that he ill-treated and deserted her, and she in some way having got into communication with the editor of a newspaper, one Horatio Bottomley, the latter published a series of articles reflecting seriously on the character of A. He brought and himself conducted an action for libel based ...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Jasraj Vs. Chandmal Hindumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom155; (1923)25BOMLR1081
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The question in this application is one of limitation. It arises on the following facts. The plaintiff, who is the manager and owner of the firm of 'Fojmal Jasraj, sued the defendant originally, which was the firm of 'Manmal Chandmal'. The suit was in respect of goods said to have been supplied by the plaintiff on January 8, 1918. It was also said that there was a part payment on May 16, 1918. The suit was filed on May 80, 1921, which was the opening day after the summer vacation of that year. The description of the defendant as given in the suit originally was 'Chandmal Hindumal as manager and owner of the shop 'Manmal Chandmal.'' It appears, however, that Chandmal had died on September 27, 1920. An application to bring the heirs on record was made in August 1921, and an order was made thereon directing two persons Manmal Hindumal and Kesarimal Brijlal as the heirs of Chandmal on September 27, 1921, to be brought on the record. The learned Judge dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Sangawa Gurubasappa Vs. Huchangowda Gowdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom174; (1923)25BOMLR1207
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. His Lordship, after dealing with the facts of the case, proceeded : The first point that has been urged in support of the appeal is that the lower Court was wrong in its view that Exhibit 18 was not admissible in evidence for want of registration. That document is in these terms :To,Gurbasappa father Bassangowda residing at Hireyarankeri Pavti (lit. receipt) to wit. The receipt passed by me Huchangowda father Huchangowda residing ah Hireyarankeri is an follows:-I shall without any objection give up your land ah any time that you may ask me to give up-Dated 25th December 1913.2. It is signed by defendant No. 1 and attested by two witnesses. We do not think that this document could be held to be inadmissible for want of registration. It is at the most an agreement to reconvay when Gurubasappa would ask him to give up the property. In the trial Court, when the objection was taken, the point as to registration was disallowed, and the document was admitted in...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomedally Adamji Masalavalla Vs. Abdul HusseIn Adamji Masalavalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom313; (1924)26BOMLR163; 79Ind.Cas.780
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed for the administration of the estate of one Adamji Massalavalla. The suit was filed on October 25, 1920, by the two sons and a daughter of the deceased Adamji against his two other sons and another daughter.2. On behalf of defendant No. 1 an objection was taken that as the properties of the deceased included a house situate at Kurla, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was contended on his behalf that it was really a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. But that objection was overruled and a preliminary decree was passed which contained a declaration that the Court had jurisdiction to administer the said Kurla property.3. From this preliminary decree defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal to this Court: Abdul Hussein v. Mahomedally : (1921)23BOMLR1326 . In that appeal it was held that a suit for the administration of an estate was not a suit for land and that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagchand Dagadusa Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1
Lallubhai Shah Ag. C.J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded:] I shall first deal with the preliminary points raised in the arguments before us in appeal. The most important among them is the point as to notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section provides as follows:-No suit shall be instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Counoil, or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Secretary of State in Council, delivered to, or left at the office of, a Secretary to the Local Government or the Collector of the District, and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims......2. There is no objection to the for...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagchand Dagadusha Gujarati and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom1; 90Ind.Cas.13
Lallubhai Shah, Acting, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District-Judge of Nasik in a suit filed by 58 shop-keepers of Malegaon against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Collector of Nasik. The suit was filed for a declaration that the Government Notification, dated 6th June 1222, directing a levy of the costs of certain additional Police and of the amount of compensation from the shop-keepers of Malegaon whether Hindus or Muhammadans was illegal and for an injunction restraining the defendants from making the recoveries authorised by the said notification.2. It will be necessary to state in some detail the facts which led to this notification. But before doing so, I may state mat the suit was defended on various grounds which are indicated by the issues raised at the trial. The first five issues relate to the preliminary objections to the suit, and the next four issues (Nos. 5 to 8) relate to the merits of the case. The learned District Judge found t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »