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.
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Girjabai Shivdeorao Vinchurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom197; (1924)26BOMLR1173
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. [His lordship first dealt with the questions of fact arising in the case and came to the conclusion that it was not shown that the lands in suit came to the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title under the sale-deed of 1755, and then continued: ] The next point relates to the question as to how they were acquired. On this point it seems to me that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is correct that under the circumstances the lands must be taken to have been acquired in any one of the ways in which such acquisition is possible. It must be remembered, as pointed out by the learned Judge, that the fact that some of the lands were entered as part of the village site later on was merely an accident, due to the survey in the nineties, when it was found that it was not being used for agricultural purposes. Though at this distance of time we may not know as to when and how these lands were acquired, it is clear that in any alienated village the Inamdar or the Saran...
Shankarbhai Manorbhai Patel Vs. Motilal Ramdas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom122; (1924)26BOMLR1217; 85Ind.Cas.197
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a certain house-site from the defendants. The plaintiffs were uncle and nephew and claimed the land as tenants-in-common. The nephew (plaintiff No. 2) died during the pendency of the suit and his widow was joined as his legal representative. The trial Court passed a decree in their favour on April 8, 1919.2. The defendants appealed to the District Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 2 Bai Chanchal the widow of the nephew, died in November 1919. No steps were taken to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on the record up to March 1921, when an application was made by the appellants to the effect that the surviving respondent No. 1 was the heir and that the appeal could go on against him without any other person being brought on the record in place of the respondent No. 2. This application was opposed on the ground that the proper heir would be Bai Jekore, th...
Alimahomed Salemahomed Vs. Municipal Commissioner of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom458; (1925)27BOMLR581; 87Ind.Cas.771
Taraporewala, J.1. This is an application under the Specific Relief Act, . 45, for an order on the Municipal Commissioner to grant the applicant a license for stables for hack victorias erected by him at Love Lane, Mazagaon, under Section 394 (1) (c) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. The Municipal Commissioner has declined to issue a license in this case on the ground that he was prevented from doing so by the order of the Appeal Court: Bombay Municipality v. Mallandaine (1928) 25 Bom. L.R. 1321 . The Municipal Commissioner has put in an affidavit in reply to the application in which he concedes that but for the judgment of the Appeal Court he is quite willing to exercise his discretion in favour of the applicant and to issue a license to him as applied for by him. In the opinion of the Commissioner, who has a discretion in the matter, the applicant is entitled to the license and he says that if he had not been advised by his legal advisers that the Appeal Court judgment...
Shankerbhai Manorbhai Patel and anr. Vs. Motilal Ramdas Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom118
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a certain house-site from the defendants. The plaintiffs were uncle and nephew and claimed the land as tenants-in-common. The nephew (plaintiff No. 2) died during the pendency of the suit and his widow was joined as his legal representative. 'The trial Court passed a decree in their favour on April 8, 1919.2. The defendants appealed to the District Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 2, Bai Chanchal, the widow of the nephew, died in November 1919. No steps were taken to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on the record up to March 1921, when, an application was made by the appellants to the effect that the surviving respondent No. 1 was the heir and that the appeal could go on against him without any other person being brought on the record in place of the respondent No. 2. This application was opposed on the ground that the proper heir would be Ba...
Vithu Balu Kharat Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1007
Fawcett, J.1. [After stating the facts of the case and discussing the evidence therein, His Lordship had a doubt as to the guilt of the accused and so gave him the benefit of that doubt. His Lordship then proceeded as follows: ] 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 witness,...
Nur Mahomed Beg Mahomed Vs. G. Monteath District Magistrate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom162; (1925)ILR49Bom152
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(c) the house in question is 'occupied by the owner,' namely, the plaintiff. In the present case two notices were given on the 14th May, 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 Section 12 of the Act; and on June 14, this suit was filed.3. So...
In Re: an Attorney
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom1; (1924)26BOMLR887; 84Ind.Cas.353
Lallubhai Shah Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this case a rule nisi was issued against an attorney of this Court at the instance of the Advocate General to show cause why he should not be dealt with under Clause 10 of the Amended Letters Patent for his alleged professional misconduct. The proceedings were, in the first instance, started against him by Bai Javerbai, who made an application for disciplinary action against the attorney, and for restraining him from further disclosing any communications. On that application, a rule was issued, and the learned Judge sitting in Chambers, after hearing the parties, was of opinion that further investigation in the matter was necessary. As a result of that inquiry by the learned Judge, the learned Advocate General moved the Court for taking notice of the conduct of the attorney, and on that application the rule, to which I have referred, was issued. Though before us there are two rules, one on the learned Advocate General's application, and the other on...
Bhagvanji Sankleshvar Dave Vs. the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom120; (1924)26BOMLR1206
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. for the supply of electricity to premises situated in another street in substitution of the supply which the plaintiff used to have in respect of premises situated near Dhinkwa Chowkey. So far as the supply of electricity to 1 he premises near Dhinkwa Chowkey was concerned, it was properly obtained by the plaintiff on a requisition contemplated by the Indian Electricity Act IX of 1910. It appears, however, that the plaintiff in accordance with the somewhat loose practice, which used to prevail before the year 1920, asked for the supply of electricity for the new premises without making a requisition in writing as required by Clause VI paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Schedule to the Act. There was some correspondence after he asked for this supply. The company apparently did not insist upon any requisition as required by the Act, and for some other reason put off s...
Madhavrao Harbaji Thakur Vs. Ambabai Laxman Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom125; 85Ind.Cas.193
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these, Bala and Malhari were cousins who owned Survey Nos. 868 and 808 in equal shares. Apparently in 1890 they sold these lands to their brother-in-law Devji, who afterwards conveyed one moiety in each of these two Survey Numbers to the wife of Malhari and the other moiety to the wife of Bala. The wives of Bala and Malhari mortgaged their respective moieties to the defendant in 1901 In miscellaneous proceedings the creditors of Bala sought to attach his interest in these lands, but the attachment was raised on the ground that he had no attachable interest in these lands, The creditors filed a suit in 1905 to which both Bala and Malhari, and the wives of Bala and Malhari, named Kashi and Baku respectively, and also the present defendant mortgagee Madhavrao were parties In that suit it was held that the conveyance to Devji was merely a nominal and sham transaction, that Bala was the true owner and that the con...
Bhagwanji Sankleshvar Dave Vs. the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.186
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd., for the supply of electricity to premises situated in another street in substitution of the supply which the plaintiff used to have in respect of premises situated near Dhinkwa Chowkey. So far as the supply of electricity to the premises near Dhinkwa Chowkey was concerned, it was properly obtained by the plaintiff on a requisition contemplated by the, Indian Electricity Act IX of 1910. It appears, however, that the plaintiff in accordance with the somewhat loose practice, which, used to prevail before the year 1920, asked for the supply of electricity for the new premises without making a requisition in writing as required by Clause (vi) paras. 4 and 5 of the Schedule to the Act. There was some correspondence after he asked for this supply. The Company apparently did not insist upon any requisition as required by the Act, and for some other reason put of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »