Mumbai Court December 1924 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amolakchand Laduram Vs. Motilal Agiariram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom497; (1925)27BOMLR437; 87Ind.Cas.953
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff's prayed for a declaration that their interest in the suit lands was neither put up to sale in darkhaat No. 199 of 1919 nor purchased by defendant No 1 Motilal, and for partition. The plaintiff's are minors who with their father defendant No. 2 constituted a joint Hindu family. In 1915 Motilal filed a suit against the second defendant in the Bombay High Court in respect of certain trade transactions which defendant No. 2 hail made with him as his Adatyain Bombay. Laduram wan therein described ' as manager of the joint family consisting oil himself and his minor sons and carrying on as such manager a joint family business at Mandal as a merchant.' Defendant No. 2 contended that he was an agriculturist, that the High Court has no jurisdiction, that the transactions sued on were all wagering transactions and made without any lawful consideration, and further set up a counter-claim against defendant No. 1. The High Court, disallowing all these cont...
Ramagirji Neelakantagirji Vs. Annavajjhala Venkatachallam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR806
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated October 26, 1917, of the High Court at Madras which reversed an order, dated January 31, 1916, of' the District Judge of Nellore, dismissing a petition which had been made by the respondent. In order to understand what was the decree of the High Court against which this appeal has been brought, it will be necessary to refer as briefly as possible to the position of the parties to the appeal and to the circumstances under which the decree of the High Court was made, The present appellant and the present respondent will hereinafter be referred to respectively as the appellant and the respondent.2. The respondent having obtained a money decree against the Zamindar of Kalahasti for a large sum of money, in execution of his decree, brought to sale on August 25, 1914, the rights and interests of the judgment-debtor in certain villages of Pammoor Taluq in the district of Nellore. Those villages had been, on August 4, 1908, convoyed by the...
Amarsangji Dungarji Jhala Vs. Deepsangji Ravabhai Jhala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom241; (1925)27BOMLR345; 87Ind.Cas.588
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the decision in the Suit No. 2 of 1913 before the Talukdari Settlement Officer, in appeal No. 541 of 1916 of the District Court and second appeal No. 919 of 1919 in the High Court, was without jurisdiction, null and void, and not binding on the plaintiffs-That the plaintiffs owned one-thirty-sixths in Tajabhai Surasanji's property in Jalia village and that they were entitled to have the shares separated. The defendants pleaded that the suit was barred on the principle of res judicata owing to the proceedings before the Talukdari Settlement Officer. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by res judicata and dismissed it. On appeal the First Class Subordinate Judge with appellate powers reversed the decision of the trial Court on the issue of res judicata and sent the suit back for trial on the remaining issues.2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 12 have appealed to the High Court. Defendants Nos. 1 to 12 made ...
Kallappa Ramappa Deyannawar Vs. Balwant Daso Bettigeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom343; (1925)27BOMLR434; 87Ind.Cas.951
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was originally dismissed on the ground that it was not competent according to the provisions of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. In second appeal to this Court Balwant v. Umnbai (1920) 23 Bom. L.R. 254 we held that that decision was wrong, and setting aside the proceedings of both the lower Courts remanded the case to the trial Court fur decision on certain issues which this Court considered were the proper questions to be determined between the parties It is now suggested that there was another issue which ought to have been sent down for trial, namely, whether the plaintiffs' objection to the sale advertised by the Maralatdar should have been considered, and whether the fact that the objections were not considered was sufficient to invalidate the sale More than four years ago this Court passed that order, and now for the first time it has been suggested that that issue ought to have been remanded for trial. It is impossible now at this sta...
Maina Bibi Vs. Chaudhri Vakil Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR796
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated March 12, 1919, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, dated about three years earlier, namely, March 18 1916, The main, if not indeed the determining, question for decision by the Board in this case is the proper construction and effect of a certain decree of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, dated November 28, 1903, duly affirmed on July 3 1906, by the aforesaid High Court on appeal thereto, This latter decree was made in a suit brought by the present respondents and others against the widow of the deceased owner of certain lands and premises described in the plaint in which she was then in lawful possession under a claim to hold the same until the dower-debt to which she was admittedly entitled should have been paid to her.2. After the death, on May 6, 1890, of this owner named Shaike Muin-ud-din, a considerable amount of litigation was set on foot ...
Ahmed Suleman Jiva Vs. Rander Town Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom345; (1925)27BOMLR429; 87Ind.Cas.948
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are owners of a house site at Rander which is 13 feet by 120 feet. On December 11,1918, they gave notice to the Municipality of their intention to build a house on this site through their attorney Ismail Hussen Jiva, On December 23, at a meeting of Managing Committee of the Municipality at which the application was considered it was resolved that the Committee were unable to interfere with the resolution previously passed by the General Board in the matter. On March 11, 1919, the matter came before a special general meeting of the Municipality, when it was decided (Exhibit 68) that the Board was of opinion that permission could be granted on the applicants undertaking to leave off building on both sides of the land namely the east and west, that is to say, on their leaving a set-back on the east and west to the streets on which the land abutted, Accordingly it was resolved that a letter should be written to the Collector and permission should ...
Bhikhalal Girdharlal Vs. Acharatlal Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom341; (1925)27BOMLR423; 87Ind.Cas.910
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the petitioner asking this Court to interfere under its powers given by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code with the order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge drawing up a decree in terms of the award, which was made in pursuance of an order of the Court, dated June 27, 1922, appointing the second opponent as arbitrator.2. The first question is whether such an application is competent. We do not think that the authorities on the point go so far as to decide that no application can be entertained under Section 115 against a decree passed in terms of an award. It is true that the head-note in Ghulam Jilani v. Muhammad Hussan (1901) L.R. 29 IndAp 51 : 4 Bom. L.R. 161 is to this effect, but it is not warranted by the terms of their lordships' judgment, as we read it. At page 60 the judgment says:'-The award having Jeeu duly made and not having been corrected or modified, and the application to set it aside having been refused,...
Jadavbai Lakhichand Vs. Multanchand Harakhchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR426; 87Ind.Cas.936
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Hasraj had four sons, Fulchand, Lakhi-chand, Harakehand and Chunilal. Fulchand passed a Farkhafc in 1904 to his father, which was in effect a partition deed. In 1907, the remaining three sous also passed Farkhats to their father, which were in effect documents of partition. Chunilal died about 1907 leaving no heirs and we are not concerned with his estate. Harakehand died in 1912 leaving his son, the plaintiff. Fulchand died in 1916 leaving a widow. Then Hasraj died in February 1918 and Lakhichand died on March 22, 1918, leaving a widow.2. Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the suit property on the ground that he remained joint with his grand-father after His father Harakehand had separated. He made an alternative claim that if he did not remain joint with Harakchaml, lie was entitled to the property left by Hasraj because he inherited it with his uncle Lakhichand and he became entitled to the whole by survivorship on Lakhichand's death.3. The pla...
Bansidhar Durgadatt Vs. the Tata Power Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR330; 87Ind.Cas.547
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff company filed this suit alleging that one Bansidhar Durgadutt (hereinafter called the first defendant) had by two several applications, dated respectively October 3, 1919, and October 11, 1919, applied for 380 ordinary and 120 preference shares in the plaintiff company subject to the articles and memorandum of association of the company, remitting with the said applications Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 37,000 respectively as the amounts of deposit in respect of the shares so applied for.2. On December 1, 191P, the Board of Directors allotted to the first defendant 190 ordinary and 120 preference shares, and notices of such allotment were sent to the first defendant. The first defendant paid the allotment moneys. A first call of Rs. 100 on each of the ordinary and preference shares was made payable on September 1, 1921, by a resolution of the Board of Directors dated July 20, 1921, and a notice was sent to the first defendant on August 12, 1921. The first...
In Re: Maruti Vithu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom247; (1925)27BOMLR350; 87Ind.Cas.596
Pratt, J.1. The complainant filed a complaint July 2, 1.924, against two accused of various compound able offences. On July 15, 1924, the District Magistrate in revision called for the papers, under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a view to withdraw the case from the First Class Magistrate and refer it for trial to another Magistrate. As a matter of fact he did so order on August 15. But in the meanwhile on July 31, the Magistrate recorded a composition of the offence and acquitted the accused under Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The District Magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate Mr. Deshpande ceased after the order had been made calling for the papers. We think the contention of the District Magistrate is correct. When the order was made calling for the record and proceedings with a view to withdrawing the case and transferring it to another Magistrate the case was no longer on the file of the Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »