Mumbai Court September 1923 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Manchankhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1087
Fawcett, J.1. In my opinion the latter objected to is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as containing statements which accompany and explain the conduct of the deceased (i.e., a person an offence against whom is the subject of this proceeding) in petitioning the Commissioner of Police for police protection against apprehended acts of or on behalf of accused No. 2, such conduct being influenced by a fact in issue (viz., accused No. 2's alleged intention to cause deceased's death, cf. Section 5, ill (a)) and a relevant fact (viz., accused No. 2's alleged ill-will towards deceased constituting a motive for accused No. 2's alleged complicity in the stabbing of deceased).2. Even accepting the view laid down in Queen-Empress v. Abdullah I.L.R. (1885) All. 385, that the conduct in question must directly and immediately influence, or be influenced, by a fact in issue or relevant fact, it is clear that the condition is satisfied. The letter shows it was written as the direct...
Tag this Judgment!Dayabhai Lallubhai Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom116; (1923)25BOMLR1218
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The applicants before us were first given a notice on August 3, 1921, to do certain things under Section 90, Sub-section (3), of the Bombay District Municipal Act in respect of an open space owned by them, but which was accessible to the occupiers of other houses in the same dehla. Objections to that notice were raised and after considering these objections the Municipality issued another notice on June 30, 1922, which is in these terms:By order of the Chief Officer, Ahmedabad Municipality, you are hereby informed by this notice that you get the dehla road in your Pole levelled and make way for passage of water and put up lights for the inhabitants of the dehla.2. One notice was given to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and a similar notice was given to accused No. 3. These notices were not complied with, and as a result the petitioners were prosecuted under the Bombay District Municipal Act. The learned First Class Magistrate found that the notice was legal and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas Kashidas Vs. Vallabhdas Kashidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom239; (1923)25BOMLR1340; 84Ind.Cas.878
Crump, J.1. The subject matter of this litigation so far as concerns the appeal before us is the house described as 'House B.' Kashidas and his two sons plaintiff and defendant formed a joint Hindu family and this house was joint family property. In 1913 these three coparceners made a partition with the aid of four arbitrators. Exhibit 17 is the award. It appears from this document that there had been a previous partition and that therefore the joint status of the parties had already terminated. What the arbitrators purported to do was to correct the inequalities of the previous partition. Para 2(a) of this document deals with 'House B'. It is first stated that Rs. 100 baa to be paid every year to the temple of Balkrishnaji at Surat for certain religious ceremonies. The document then proceeds as follows:For that out of the immoveable properties of Kashidas Bhaidas House No. 1 [here follows the description] has been set apart for being given in 'Krishnarpan' to the said temple so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Annappa Goregaonkar Vs. Ganpat Sakharam Bhosle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom263; (1923)25BOMLR1307; 87Ind.Cas.289
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on behalf of the shop by the name of Krishappa Anna Goregaon kar of Nipani against Krishna Annappa Goregaonkar, Vahiwatdar and Proprietor of the shop Anna Satappa Shet Goregaon-kar of Poona, for an account of certain dealings which the firm at Nipani had with the shop at Poona. The lower Court has appointed a Commissioner to take accounts, and has further directed that whatever amount is found due may be taken into account in the other suit between the parties. An objection was taken on behalf of the defendant in the trial Court that the suit could not lie. But that objection was not allowed.2. The defendant has appealed from the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, and has urged the same objection before as. It is an admitted fact in the case that the plaintiff-firm consists of three partners, one of whom is Krishnappa Anna Goregaonkar. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant, Kriehnappa Anna Gorega...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Mahomed Jabli Vs. Abdulla Mahomed Zulaikhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom290; (1923)25BOMLR1333; 84Ind.Cas.796
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference by the Resident at Aden in Appeal No. 20 of 1922 on the file of that Court. The reference arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for damages resulting from injury caused to him by the defendant through the instrumentality of one Ali Mahomed Farag. The plaintiff's case was that, on September 6, 1920, Ali Mahomed Farag threw sulphuric acid in his face and thereby caused injury to him which ultimately resulted in the loss of one of his eyes. The defendant was said to have instigated Ali Mahomed Farag to cause this injury to the plaintiff and the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant on that account. The suit was filed on February 13, 1922. Soon after the injury was caused, there were criminal proceedings against Ali Mahomed Farag and the present defendant. The trial Court in the criminal case convicted both Ali Farag and the present defendant. But the defendant was ultimately acquitted in appeal on November 20 1920. The trial...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Sorabji Patel Vs. Lakhmidas Ravji Tersi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom89; (1923)25BOMLR1180
Marten, J.1. This is an application for a consent decree where I am doubtful that I have been told all the material facts. The innocent application that is made to me by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is that by consent the suit should be dismissed against them without costs.2. The suit is apparently on a promissory note for, I am told, Rs. 15,000. I am also told that the plaintiff has now been paid by defendant No. 3, and that defendant No. 3 has no claim for contribution against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. But defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are not sui juris. They are merely defendants because they have been appointed Receivers in an action for partition or administration of the assets of the original first defendant one Lallu-bhai Nathoochand since deceased. I have not seen the plaint in that action in which they have been appointed Receivers, nor the order, and I had considerable difficulty in ascertaining from their counsel what the nature of the action was. This is what I am told.3. I further und...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavlal Punjalal Sheth Vs. the Collector of Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom228; (1923)25BOMLR1240
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This appeal came on for hearing before my brother Coyajee and myself; but as we were invited to reconsider the decision in The Collector of Kaira v. Chunilal I.L.R. (1905) 29 Bom. 161 it was ordered to be heard by this Bench. We have now heard the appeal and the principal point argued is whether the said ruling is to be followed or not.2. The appeal arises in this way:Sheth Punjalal Amritlal of Prantij died on May 15, 1916, leaving two sons, Keshavlal and Kodarlal During his life-time they formed a joint family. On his death the joint estate survived to his two sons. The estate included certain shares in various companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, which were in the name of Punjalal. The sons subsequently effected a partition of the whole estate in 1920, and as a result divided among other things the beneficial interest in the shares. They applied for limited letters of administration to the estate of their father relating to the said sha...
Tag this Judgment!ShamsudIn Tajbhai Vs. Dahyabhai Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom357; (1924)26BOMLR105; 84Ind.Cas.947
Fawcett, J.1. [His Lordship first set forth the facts of the case and dealt with the requisitions one by one:] I next take various requisitions relating to heirs as mentioned in various documents.2. Nos. 1 to 5 relate to recitals in the conveyance of 1883 (Exh. L). That was a document about forty-seven years old, and the recitals contained therein should have been accepted, in the absence of anything throwing suspicion on their character, Mr. Kustamji, plaintiff's solicitor, has given uncontradicted evidence of the practice of Bombay solicitors to accept recitals in deeds of over twenty years old, in the same way as is done in England under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, (Williams, Vol. I, p. 136)...3. In requisition No. 15 the vendor was required to furnish to the purchaser certified copies of the orders and consent decrees mentioned in the conveyance dated October 21, 1914, and the answer was 'the vendor will do so at the purchaser's costs.' I accept Mr. Rustamji's uncontradicte...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshamdas Balkrishnadas Vs. Motichand Harakchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom180; (1923)25BOMLR1237
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application to execute the decree passed in Suit No. 402 of 1908 on October 26, 1909. It was passed on a promissory note executed by defendant No. 1 in respect of dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants' shop for Rs. 970 and costs as claimed from the defendants, i.e., from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and from the estate of all the defendants' family and that of the shop At that time defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the only adult members of the family and the other defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were minors.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 applied to the High Court to be adjudged insolvents. The adjudication order was made on September 6, 1910, and they got their discharge on March 20, 1912. The plaintiff had notice of these insolvency proceedings.3. The plaintiff made his first application for execution against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 only in 1911. The second application (No. 674 of 1914) was made against them only in 1914. In 1917, the...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Bombay Vs. Merwan Moondigar Aga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom161; (1923)25BOMLR1182
Mulla, J.1. This is a reference from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act, The property was notified for acquisition for a park scheme on February 9, 1920, and the market value of the property is to be determined as of that date.2. The property is situated on Cadell Road, Mahim. The area is 5957 square yards. It has a frontage of 380 feet and an average depth of 138 feet. On the north of the property there is a passage about twelve feet wide. Beyond the passage there is a large tank which is Survey No. 1770 On the east there is another huge tank covered by Survey No. 1752. On the south there is a passage also about twelve feet wide. As regards frontage it is to be observed that a portion of it admeasuring about 150 feet abuts on Cadell Road, while the rest being about 230 feet abuts on a remnant of old Parbhadevi Road. Beyond that road there is a triangular piece of land shown in the plan Exh. No. 4, which belongs to the Municipality. This triangle c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »