Mumbai Court November 1924 Judgments
Dhanaji Jhelaji Vs. Gulabchand Pana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom347; (1925)27BOMLR409; 87Ind.Cas.812
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit, alleging that defendant No. 1 and his sons defendants Nos. 2 to 5 together with defendant No. 6 were trading in partnership in the name and style of Pana Nathaji, that plaintiff purchased the right, title and interest of defendant No. 6 in the partnership on March 20, 1918, that notice to render accounts was given to defendant No. 1 on March 21, when defendant No. 1 replied that the defendant No. 6 had passed a release on settlement of his right on April 3, 1918. Accordingly he prayed for a declaration that he was the owner of the 2,J anna share of defendant No. 6 in the shop and that the moveable and immoveable property of the shop should be divided and accounts taken of the shop.2. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 pleaded inter alia that defendant No. 6 had passed a release in their favour on February 17, 1918.3. Defendant No. 6 alleged that the release was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, but that plaintiff purchased his r...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanlal Panalal Vs. Bai Manchha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom355; (1925)27BOMLR532; 87Ind.Cas.1043
Kemp, J.1. This is an application to review the Taxing Master's taxation of the defendant's bill of costs.2. The suit was for possession of certain immoveable property, and on February 6, 1923, a consent decree was passed directing the costs of both sides to be taxed between party and party. There was no order as to which side should pay the other party's coats, but it is admitted that there was an agreement by which the plaintiffs agreed to pay the defendant's costs of the suit. An order had been made prior to the decree directing the plaintiffs to pay the costs of a particular day including the fees for the attendance of witnesses on that day. The taxation before the Taxing Master lasted from October 4, 1922, to November 15, 1922. After the latter date there was a further taxation with regard to payments alleged to have been made to the witnesses amounting to Rs. 924 odd. The plaintiffs contended that the moneys had never been paid to the witnesses) and, if any such payment had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Umra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR701
Dunedin, J 1. This is a petition for special leave to appeal against a sentence of death pronounced on the petitioner by the Sessions Judge of Shahpur and confirmed by the High Court at Lahore.2. The petitioner, with others, organised a robbery in the house of a money-lender. They broke into the house at night and took ornaments, money and other things, from the wife who was in the house (the money-lender himself being absent). Other persons arriving on the scene, two of the gang stationed on the roof fired shots and killed two persons. The conviction pronounced against the petitioner and four others was for the murder of these persons,3. One Misri, one of the party, made a statement to the police, in which he detailed the incidents of the robbery and incriminated the various accused, including the petitioner. The admission of this statement was objected to by the vakil for the petitioner, but it was admitted by the Sessions Judge, and this admission was confirmed by the High Court. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimsangji Chhatrasangji Vs. Dolatsangi Hamirsangji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom282; (1925)27BOMLR247
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff sued inter alia for a declaration that ho was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of 11s 500 received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same. The total claim was valued for Court-fees at Rs. 2143-5-8 and also for jurisdiction. The suit was tried by the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. On appeal to the District Judge, an issue was raised whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Class at Ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under rule 10 of Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code.3. We think that that order was wrong It depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Manilal Harivallavdas Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom278; (1925)27BOMLR371
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the District Court of Ahmedabad to recover from eighteen persona who were members of the Ahmedabad Municipality from March 1, 1921 to December 17, 1921, and from a nineteenth person who was a member from October 13, 1921, only, the sum of Rs. 1,68,600 being the amount of expenditure incurred by the Municipality on the maintenance of the primary schools during the suit period, on the allegation that it was misapplied, as the schools were maintained 'luring that period contrary to the provisions of the Bombay District Municipal Act, Bom. Act III of 1901, and the rules framed thereunder, The claim was afterwards decreased by amendment to Rs. 1,37,709-5-8, to be recovered against all the defendants jointly and severally, except defendant No. 16 against whom the claim was limited to Rs. 80,825-3 8. Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 12 put in a joint written statement, the other defendants filed separate written state...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimsangji Chhatrasangji Vs. Dolatsang Ji Hamirsangji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.801
1. The plaintiff sued, inter alia, for a declaration that he was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of Rs. 500 received by Bai Surajkuvar as her heir and as such entitled to recover the same. The total claim was valued for Court-fees at Rs. 2,143-5-8 and also for jurisdiction. The suit was tried by the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Ankleshwar who passed a decree in favour of the' plaintiff.2. On appeal to the District Judge, an issue was raised whether the Court-had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Judge held that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of the Second Class at Ankleshwar, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under Rule 10 of Order VII of the C.P.C.3. We think that that order was wrong. It depends, in the first place, upon what value should be placed on the first relief claimed, namely, the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the Toda Giras Hak of Es. 500. The District Judge thou...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Basappa Rudrappa Dhamangi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR113
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The three accused were charged before the Acting Sessions Judge of Belgaum with having committed the murder of one Sakreva on the night of April 6, the third accused being charged in the alternative under Sections 502 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code with abetment of the murder. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty under Section 302 and accused No. 3 was found guilty of abetment under as. 302 and 109 by the Sessions Judo-e disagreeing with the assessors. All were sentenced to transportation for life. The case for the prosecution was as follows. Sakreva was a Jogti woman living alone. Close by lived Motiappa a carpenter and his wife accused No. 3. Monappa became too intimate with Sakreva with the result that accused No. 3 finding her remonstrances of no avail instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to murder Sakreva.2. Sakreva was last seen alive on the evening of April 6. On the evening of the 8th her dead body was discovered in a tank a short distance away from h...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaiyalal Nanalal Desai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom255; (1925)27BOMLR368; 87Ind.Cas.475
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Collector of Surat asking for the following reliefs :-(1) That It may be declared that the preparation and publication of the lists for voters for all general and Mahomedan constituencies of the District Local Hoard of Surat was illegal, void, ultra vires, and no valid election of the members of the District Local Board of Surat for the term commencing on and from the 1st day of January 1825 could take place under the said lists;(2) For an injunction restraining the Collector of Surat from himself or by his subordinates holding elections of members of the District Local Board of Surat for the term commencing on and from the 1st January 1923 under the alleged illegal lists.2. He then applied to the District Judge for an interim injunction.3. After hearing arguments the Judge, while holding that he had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction, said:-Now the only effective ...
Tag this Judgment!William Graham Vs. Krishna Chandra Dey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR740
Sumner, J.1. This was a purchaser's suit to enforce under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a contract for the sale of two plots of land for one sum of KB, 1,53,000 in the Tollygunj District of Calcutta. The contract required the vendor to make out a marketable title and, in case of failure to do so, bound him to refund the deposit on demand. It also stipulated that in case of any deficiency in the area or quantity of land, no compensation should be payable by the vendor on actual measurement. There was no general condition either providing for compensation or excluding it. The vendor proved to be unable to make a title to the second plot and the trial Judge, having offered the plaintiff a decree for the conveyance of the other plot on the terms of Section 15, which offer was refused, dismissed the suit without costs. On the issue of damages for breach of the contract no evidence of material damage was given.2. On appeal the High Court, considering that the case fell within the terms of S...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Najoo Khan Vs. Ali Ebrahim Noor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR746
Sumner, J.1. In this case the appellant, Ahmed Khan Najoo Khan, was the plaintiff in a suit in the Court of the Assistant Resident at Aden, and he sued two defendants, one who is now the effective respondent on this appeal, and the other his father, against whom no case has been made at all. The real issue lies between the appellant and the first defendant on the record.2. Between these two parties an agreement of partnership was entered into in 1916. Their trade was to ship goods from Aden to places on the Somali coast, and with the proceeds of the sales to purchase local produce there and ship it back to Aden. The plaintiff carried on the business in Aden; the first defendant carried on the business at the places in Somaliland. The plaintiff found the money and the defendant presumably found the experience. The profits and losses were to be equally divided. Business went on between them until the end of the year 1917, after which the plaintiff in Aden shipped no further goods for dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »