Mumbai Court August 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.
Kesarlal Girdharlal Desai and ors. Vs. Jagubhai Hiralal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom406; 94Ind.Cas.686
Marten, J.1. [His Lordship after discussing facts, referred to the contention that as a matter of law, interest could not be paid and proceeded as follows:-]2. Mr. Rao cited to us several decisions of the Privy Council based on the law or the practice which was in force prior to the present practice and to the practice which regulated the decisions of the Court at the time when these proceedings were originally heard. I may note in passing that in one judgment their Lordships followed a particular rule, not because they themselves were in favour of it but because it represented practically the unanimous decisions of all the High Courts in India, and therefore in face of that unanimous opinion they were not prepared to set it aside, and declare that those decisions were all wrong. But in fact by alteration in the rules those decisions have been rendered obsolete.3. Now we have not here a suit for possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits as in Order 20, Rule 12. In ...
Jagubhai Hiralal Heir of the Deceased Hiralal Nathubhai Desai Vs. Kesa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom282
Marten, J.1. [After dealing at considerable length with the various other points that had arisen, the learned' Judge observed in conclusion:] There yet remains the question whether Himatlal's nephews are entitled to share along with their uncle Hiralal, or whether Hiralal alone takes so much of Himatlal's one-fifth share as did not pass under the sale-deed, Exhibit 358. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my brother Fawcett has prepared on that point, and I need only say that I concur in it.Fawcett, J.2. [On the above question of law proceeded.] The dispute resolves itself into one whether under the law of succession contained in the Mayukha, which is the leading authority in the province of Gujarat, whence the parties come, the sole heir of Himatlal was Hiralal, his only surviving brother, or whether the nephews of Himatlal, plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the sons of predeceased brothers, are entitled to share along with Hiralal, as ...
Manjaya Sannaya Shanbhog Vs. Sheshgiri Shambhuling Upadhya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom129; (1924)26BOMLR1267; 85Ind.Cas.207
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. The genealogical table showing the necessary relationship is given at page 3 of the print. One Subbaya had two sons, Timanna and Puttaya. Timmanna adopted as his son one Narayan. Narayan died before 1873, leaving a widow Timmamma In 1873 the four sons of Puttaya, the brother of Timmanna, one named Sannaya alias Subbaya by his first wife, and three named Shambhulinga, Timmanna and Subbaya, by his second wife, were alive In 1873 Timmamma, the widow of Narayan, alienated the whole of her estate to Shambhulinga. Shambhulinga afterwards sold these properties to different persons by different sale deeds. Three of the sale deeds executed in 1877 by Shambhulinga in favour of the purchasers from him were attested by Subbaya, the step-brother of Shambhulinga. These alienees obtained possession of these properties and continued in possession until the death of Timmamma in April 1913. At the time of her death the reversioners were the two sons of Subbaya, namely, Manjaya...
international Banking Corporation Vs. H. Pestonji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom187; (1925)27BOMLR31
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiffs as holders for value of nineteen bills of exchange mentioned in the plaint have filed this suit to recover from the defendants the amounts due on them.2. It appears that these bills were drawn by Messrs, Royle & Binns of Manchester on the defendants and were payable to the order of the drawers. All these bills were re-accepted after time of payment was extended and. it is urged on behalf of the defendants that these bills are not admissible in evidence, having regard to the provision of Section 14 of the Indian Stamp Act.3. It appears that these bills were originally drawn in August 1920 payable at ninety days' sight. They were accepted by the defendants and, after they were accepted, the defendants felt that they would not be able to meet these drafts on due dates, so they requested the plaintiff's to write to their home friends to get the time extended and they stated that Messrs. Royle & Binns were not unwilling to do so. Time was extended by four months ...
Narsangji Mehramansangji Vs. Bai Achrat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1264; 85Ind.Cas.204
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This has been rather an unfortunate litigation as it commenced in 1914, and in 1924 we are hearing this appeal from an order remanding the suit for retrial on the merits.2. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of certain lands described in the schedule to the plaint as belonging to the estate of Kankapura while the defendants who represent the estate of Dehvan contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Assistant Survey Settlement Officer had decided the questions, and that the lands belonged to the Dehvan estate. On these pleadings two issues were framed in the trial Court:-(1) Is the suit for alteration of the decision of the Assistant Survey Settlement Officer as regards Dehvan and Kankapura unmaintainable?3. The finding was that it was not maintainable.(4) Do the lands described in Schedule A annexed to the plaint form part of the village of Kankapura and as such belong to the plaintiffs?4. The finding was 'if necessary I would hold in the nega...
Nariman Rustomji Mehta Vs. Hasham Ismayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom137; (1924)26BOMLR1261; 85Ind.Cas.191
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The application was filed on February 12, 1924. The decree sought to be appealed from was passed on February 9, 1923. The application is, therefore, beyond time, and the first question is whether the delay in presenting the application should be excused. The reason relied upon for excusing the delay is that the petitioner filed an application for a review of the decree, now sought to be appealed from, on April 13, 1923. On that application a rule was granted by this Court in September 1923, and that rule was discharged on February 11, 1924. It is urged that as the petitioner was pursuing the remedy by way of review, the time taken up from April 13, 1923, up to February 11, 1924, should be excused under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and reliance is placed upon the decision in Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram .2. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was pr...
Forbes, Forbes, Campbell and Co. Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom173; (1925)27BOMLR34
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It arises out of a suit filed by the Official Assignee, in whom the estate of Raoji Nanchand, who was adjudicated an insolvent, was vested, in respect of a hundi. The hundi in question was drawn in favour of one Ramdas Keshavji or bearer on Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd, That hundi was indorsed on the back as 'sold by Ramdas Keshavji to Raoji Nanchand.' We are not concerned with the indorsement on the face of the hundi at the top. The hundi was presented by the Munim of one Madhavdas Keshavji to Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co Ltd. It was treated as a hundi payable to bearer and the money was paid to Madhavdas; Keshavji's Munim, This Madhavdas Keshavji was a third person in whose favour there is no indorsement on the hundi. The Official Assignee claimed the amount of this hundi as belonging to the insolvent Raoji Nanchand. The learned . Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, who he...
Nur Mahomed Beg Mahomed Vs. G. Monteath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR56
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Poona dismissing the plaintiff's suit for an injunction to restrain the District Magistrate from evicting him from his bungalow. The matter arises under the Cantonments (House-Accommodation) Act, 1923, which is an Act of the Imperial Legislature, and is not a Bombay Act as is inaccurately stated in the Memo of Appeal.2. Shortly stated, the plaintiff claims that the cantonment authorities had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 7 of the Act, requiring him to vacate and to execute a lease in favour of the military authorities, because under Section 10 (61) the house in question is 'occupied by the owner,' namely, the plaintiff. In the present case two notices were given on May 14, Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 26. On June 12, the District Magistrate gave notice in effect that he might be obliged to enforce the surrender of the house under h. 12 of the Act; and on June 14, this suit was filed.3. So far as the m...
Emperor Vs. Rachappa Murigeppa Shabadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom26; (1924)26BOMLR968; 83Ind.Cas.1006
Lallubhai Shah, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order of acquittal made in a summary trial at which the accused was charged under Section 294 A, Indian Penal Code. The act charged against him was that he published a hand-bill relating to his shop in which on a side the following print appeared 'Goa Lottery tickets can be had at our place (i. e. shop).' The learned trial Magistrate did not accept the contention for the Crown urged before him that this constituted an offence under the second paragraph of Section 294 A. In other words he did not accept the contention that this constituted a publication of a proposal to pay any sum, on any event or contingency within the meaning of the section. Apparently at the trial an attempt was made to show that the accused in fact had sold some tickets of this lottery, but that attempt did not succeed. We are not concerned in the present case with the question as to whether it would be an offence under the secti...
Emperor Vs. Vithu Balu Kharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom510; (1924)26BOMLR965
Fawcett, J.1. [His lordship stated the facts and discussed at length the evidence in the ease. The discussion gave vine to a doubt'as to the accused's guilt: the accused was given the benefit of that doubt. The judgment then proceeded:--] Before concluding, I may mention that the learned Sessions Judge has admitted in evidence the written record of a statement made by the boy Eknath before the Police Sub-Inspector in the course of the Police investigation into this case. This was apparently done in the course of the boy's cross-examination at the request of the accused's pleader in order to discredit his statement that he and his father were dragged out of the hut. there is no doubt that, under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the fact that no such allegation had been made by him to the police could be proved in order to discredit him under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But Section 162 says that the accused may be furnished with a copy of the statement of a w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »