Mumbai Court December 1924 Judgments
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Great Indian Peninsula Rai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR810
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. Thin appeal is from a decree dated April 5, 1923, of the High Court at Bombay, which followed on a judgment pronounced in a Special Case under Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties the case are the Secretary of State for India in Council as plaintiff and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company as defendant, and the question stated for the opinion of the Court is. Whether stores purchased and imported by the defendant Company into India for the use of the undertaking as mentioned in the case are at the time of the importation, goods belonging to Government.' On the decision of this question depends the liability of the defendant Company to pay Customs duties under Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, VIII of 1878. By this section Customs duties are imposed which would attach to the stores unless they come within the proviso to the section that no such duties shall be levied on goods belonging to the Government The answer to the question propound...
Tag this Judgment!Mehbunissa Begum Vs. Mehmedunissa Begum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom309; (1925)27BOMLR403; 95Ind.Cas.687
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff applied for execution of a decree passed on June 28, 1916, claiming against defendant No. 1 only, the four instalments which had become payable for the years 1917-18 to 1920-21. After the darkhast was issued defendant No. 1 died and his representatives were placed on the record. They put in a written statement in which they pleaded that though the plaintiff had recovered the amount to the extent of the shares of all the defendants except the deceased defendant No. 1, he had presented the darkhast for the recovery of the whole of the amount due under the instalments fixed by the decree without giving credit for the amount recovered therein that the plaintiff had dishonestly presented the darkhast for the whole of the amount and had made n false affirmation and so sanction should be granted for instituting legal proceedings against him, and that he should be made to give credit in the suit for the amount recovered by him.2. It is admitted that th...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadarmal Gurmukhrai Nemani Vs. Mohanlal Surchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom335; (1925)27BOMLR536
Taraporewala, J.1. In this case the plaintiff abandoned at the hearing his claim that certain windows in the west wall of his building were ancient windows and that he was entitled to an easement of light and air through the said windows. He has confined his claim to an alleged right to open the shutters of the said windows on the defendants' property, and, further, to maintain weather-frames on the windows in the west wall on the second and third floors of the plaintiff's building as they exist at present. The said right to open the shutters at will and to maintain the said weather-frames on the windows is based on the ground that the said windows have been so opened and the said weather-frames have been in existence for more than twelve years and that the plaintiff is entitled to the said rights not by way of easement but by way of adverse possession of the column of air on the defendants' property, in which the said shutters open and on which the said weather-frames project.2. The d...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Von Wulfing Vs. D.H. Jivandas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR243
Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mangal Naran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR355
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case was found guilty of (1) kidnapping a girl in order to commit murder under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, and (2) having murdered the girl and so having committed an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. For the first offence he was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, and for the second he was sentenced to transportation for life.2. The accused filed a petition of appeal from the jail and when it came before the Court for admission the Court was of opinion that the accused ought to have been sentenced to death. Consequently the following order was made:--'Admit and issue notice to enhance the sentence, i. e,, to sentence of death.'3. This order would at first sight seem to be strange, although it may be justified by the addition to Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code contained in Sub-section 6 The Court exercising the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by the relative section of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Naran Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom268; 87Ind.Cas.424
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused in this case was found guilty of (1) kidnapping a girl in order to commit murder under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, and (2) having murdered the girl and so having committed an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. For the first offence he was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, and for the second he was sentenced to transportation for life.2. The accused filed a petition of appeal from the Jail and when it came before the Court for admission the Court was of opinion that the accused ought to have been sentenced to death, Consequently the following order was made: 'Admit and issue notice to enhance the sentence, i.e., to sentence of death.'3. The order would at first sight seem to be strange, although it may be justified by the addition to Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. contained in Sub-section 6. The Court exercising the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by the relative section of, the Cr. P.C. has no power to enhance the sent...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Municipality Vs. Govind Karsan Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom419; (1925)27BOMLR447
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This in a suit by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 368-C-l levied from him by the Municipality of Kalyau for general sanitary cess and shop-tax in regard to the property situated within the Kalyan Municipal area. The plaintiff's contention was that the recovery was illegal inasmuch as he was net given the notice required by Section 65 (1) of the .District Municipal Act, and because the Municipality did not observe the procedure prescribed by Sections 59 to 65 of the Act in regard to the imposition of these taxes.2. A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies, the suit being of a Small Causes Court nature. If the plaintiff had confined his claim to the amount taxed and illegally recovered by him, then it would have been a suit triable by the Small Causes Court, and consequently there would be no second appeal. But the plaintiff asked for interest on that sum and that could only have been awarded as damages or compensation for the amount having...
Tag this Judgment!Tarabai Ramrao Patankar Vs. Dattaram Govindbhai Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom465; (1925)27BOMLR441; 87Ind.Cas.765
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The main facts in this appeal are common to S. A. 683 of 1922 and need not be wet out again The heirs of Vinayak filed the suit to recover possession of the other half of the Vatan lands. After the final decree in the suit of 1896 was passed in April 1912, Vinayak obtained possession of his half share, in July 1013. In August 1915, Tarabai, in execution of her decree against Antaji, dispossessed the tenants of Vinayak as well, Jankibai, widow of Vinayak's uncle, sought to recover possession, but her application was rejected in 1916. After her death her grand-daughter filed this suit against Tarabai making Vinayak's grandson and nephew party defendants,2. The trial Judge hold that the validity of the mortgage ceased at the death of Htinmaiitrao, and Parchure who was then in possession became a trespasser, But the plaintiff did not claim through Parchure and until July 1.913 neither they nor their predecessors had any possession at all. From July 1913 they had...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahadev Laxman Satardekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom258; (1925)27BOMLR352; 87Ind.Cas.527
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri. One Muhadeo Laxman filed a complaint on April 15, 1924, under km. 44.S, 500 and 350, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Milvan against Sitaram Narayan Tavde, Havildar o1 the 1/5th Mahratta Light Infantry then stationed at Secunderabad, and three others. The complaint was that the accused entered the complainant's house on April 8 1924, beat him and threatened to kill him. The First Class Magistrate verified the complaint and dismissed it under Section 20a of the Criminal Procedure Code on April 16, 1924.2. The complainant then tiled a fresh complaint on the same facts against the same accused in the Court of the Bench Magistrates of the Second Class at Malvan on April 25, 1924 The fact of his previous complaint having been dismissed by the First Class Magistrate was not mentioned by the complainant in his complaint to the Bench Magistrates. The Bench Magistrates entert...
Tag this Judgment!Gulbaji Ajisigi and Co. Vs. Rustomji Khabsedji Banatvalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR380; 95Ind.Cas.229
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Kharsedji Jamasji Banatwalla died on July 10, 1870, leaving .1 will dated May 5, 1870, probate of which was granted to his son Edulji on June 14, 1871. Under clause 8 of the will, certain property was given to Rustomji, the second son of the testator. By clause 10 of the will, certain limitations were sought to be imposed on Rustomji's interests in the property. In 1908 he mortgaged the property to the plaintiff's in this suit and granted two further charges dated December 9,1909, and July 10, 1911. In 1917 Rustomji took out an originating summons to determine the true construction of the will with regard to the interest he acquired thereunder in this property. The present plaintiff's were not parties to those proceedings which were evidently of a friendly nature between Rustomji and other members of his family.2. By the order of the Court of July 30, ] 917J it was declared that Rustomji only took a life interest in the property. It was not until 1921 that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »