Mumbai Court October 1925 Judgments
Saklat Vs. Bella
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR161
Phillimore, J.1. The circumstances of this case are as follows:Some time in 1899 a Goanese Christian named Jones with his wife arrived in Rangoon. They were in humble circumstances, and the wife applied for assistance to a Parsi of good position at Rangoon, Bomanji Cowasji, stating that she too was a Parsi. He befriended her till he went to England in 1900 and then asked his brother Shapurji Cowasji to look after her and the child to which she had just given birth, the respondent Bella. The father died and when her mother died shortly afterwards Shapurji, who was a defendant in this suit, but died pending the appeal, took Bella into his own house, and he and his wife treated her as their own child. 2. When Bella was nearly fourteen it was desired that the initiation ceremony into the Zoroastrian religion called Navjot should be performed for her, but the local Head Priest at Rangoon refused, chiefly because-as it appears from his evidence-he thought it would be unpopular with the Parsi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Protap Champia Vs. Durga Prosad Champia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR217
Blanesburgh, J.1. This appeal is from an order of the High Court of Judicature a Fort William in Bengal, exercising appellate jurisdiction and in effect affirming an order made byMr. Justice Greaves, sitting in the exercise of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court. Both were orders propounded in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership, and their result was to set aside an award of arbitrators so far as that award affected to deal with matters in question in the suit. The appellant upholds the award and asks that the orders setting it aside be discharged.2. The circumstances are somewhat involved and, in detail, elaborate. It will be possible, however, as their Lordships hope, to state the facts in a summary form without endangering such accuracy as is requisite for the purposes of their judgment.3. The disputants are descendants of one Nandaram Chamria, and their disputes are to a large extent, although not altogether traceable to questions concering the division of the e...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal Abirchand Vs. Ghulam Mahbub Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR211
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment and decree dated September 27, 1922, of the Court of the Resident at Hyderabad, reversing a decree dated November 22, 1921, of the Assistant Resident there, and restoring, albeit, on other grounds, a decree made by the Civil Judge of Secunderabad, dated July 8,1919.2. The suit was commenced by the appellant in the Court of that Judge in September 1911, Its purpose was to recover money lent by him so long ago as 1891 to the grandfather of the first respondent with repayment guaranteed, so it was alleged by the late Sir Asnam Jah, Prime Minister of Hyderabad, whose estate is represented in the suit by his son, the second respondent. The borrower, the alleged surety, and their respective representatives were, or are, all resident in Hyderabad, the capital of the Nizam's dominious. The appellant, however, has a place of business at Secunderabad, a neighbouring British cantonment, and asserting that the loans were both mad...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Harjivan Valji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR115
Fawcett, J.1. [After setting out the facts of the case the judgment proceeded:] Before proceeding to consider the applications on their merits, so far as they can be dealt with in revision, I will first notice two objections that have been taken to the legality of the proceedings before the Magistrates. The first of these is that the depositions, by consent of the pleaders both for the Grown and the accused, taken in one of the three cases were admitted as evidence in the other two cases. As to this the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Appeal No. 7 before him says that the depositions were read out in each of the two other cases, and hence the provisions of the law in that respect were complied with. No doubt this procedure is not regular, but I do not think that we are constrained to hold that it constitutes an illegality which vitiates the trial of the other two cases. I know of no authority to that extent, and in Emperor v. Ghanasham : (1906)8BOMLR538 , which is a somewhat similar case,...
Tag this Judgment!Genaram Kapurchand Marwadi Vs. Hanmantram Surajmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR761
Fawcett, J.1. In my opinion, the view taken by the two lower Courts that the previous darkhasts were not according to Jaw, within the meaning of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, is correct, as Order XXI, Rule 16, clearly contemplates only the assignment of a decree ' that has been passed ' This is supported by reference to the terms of the old Section 208 of Act VIII of 1859, which is the precursor of the present rule; and that section clearly required that the assignment should be from the original decree-holder. That section is cited in Abidunnissa Khatoon v. Amirunnissa Khatoon I.L.R.(1876) Cal. 327 This view is also in accordance with that taken by the Madras High Court in Bhandari v. Ramachandra (1907) 17 M.L.J. 391. There it is stated (p. 392):There can be no doubt that when the assignment was made there was no decree in existence. The proper course for the appellant to have taken would have been to apply under Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be made a part...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Yesuji Shelar Vs. Vithal Narayan Shelar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR759
Madgavkar, J.1. [As to joinder of parties his lordship said :] As regards the frame of the suit, the present respondents were proper parties on the contention of the plaintiff. But, as they denied that they were tenants of the other defendants, it was open to the Court, if it chose, to frame a preliminary issue on the point and continue or dismiss them according to the finding. In the course that the litigation, however, has taken, they must be treated as having been properly impleaded.Fawcett, J.1. [As to joinder of parties his lordship said :] On the legal point as to the joinder of defendants Nos. 4 to 9, the learned Assistant Judge failed to notice that the law, as laid down in Jaggeswar Dutt v. Bhuban Mohan Mitra I.L.R.(1906) Cal. 425 and other cases, is qualified by an exception in the case where the person asserting a title paramount is connected with the mortgage. Here, the defendants Nos. 4 to 8 were connected with the mortgage on the plaintiffs allegation that they were tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Vesuji Shelar Vs. Vithal Narayan Shelar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom522
Madgavkar, J.1. (His Lordship upholding the decree appealed against proceeded to decide the question as to joinder of parties). As regards the frame of the suit, the present respondents were proper parties on the contention of the plaintiff. But, as they denied that they were tenants of the other defendants, it was open to the Court, if it chose, to frame a preliminary issue on the point and continue or dismiss them according to the finding. In the course that the litigation, however, has taken, they must be treated as having been properly impleaded.Fawcett, J.2. (His Lordship proceeded to decide the question as to joinder of parties). On the legal point as to the joinder of Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 the learned Assistant Judge failed to notice that the law, as laid down in Jaggeswar Dull v. Bhuban Mohan Mitra [1906] 33 Cal. 425 and other cases, is qualified by an exception in the case where the person asserting a title paramount is connected with the mortgage. Here, the Defendants Nos. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Umaji Krishnaji Sonavni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR95
Fawcett, J.1. The first point taken by Mr. Desai is that the conviction ought to be set aside because the Magistrate neglected to observe the provisions of Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as he did not ask the accused to state, before he was called upon for his defence, whether he wanted to recall any other prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. The contention is that the provisions of this section apply to a summary trial like the present by virtue of the provisions of Section 262, which says that 'the procedure prescribed for summons-cases shall be followed in summons-cases and the procedure prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed in warrant-cases, except as hereinafter mentioned. There is an important provision in the following Section 263 that, in a case where no appeal lies, such as the present, the Magistrate or Bench of Magistrates need not frame a formal charge. They merely have to record the nature of the offence complained of and prov...
Tag this Judgment!Suzuki and Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttamlal Maneklal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR572
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Judge of the Bombay Court of Small Causes, under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover damages from the defendants for breach of a contract of sale of twenty-five tons of Mauritius sugar, By a contract dated October 21, 1924, the defendants agreed to buy from the plaintiffs fifty tons Mauritius crystal sugar fair average quality, shipment November-December divided equally at a price of Section 20/9 per cwt., Free Bombay Harbour to be shipped on the conditions specified in the agreement as follows :1. The price was to include cost, freight and insurance of particular average. The plaintiffs were not to be responsible for damages other than that recoverable under W. P. A. insurance policy. All duties and all landing Customs and Dock charges were to be paid by the buyers.2. On arrival in Bombay Docks of the whole or any portion of the goods of any shipment under the con...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Manordas Goradia Vs. C.K. Daruwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1080; 97Ind.Cas.766
Mirza, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendant in a summary suit to excuse the delay of five days in taking out the summons for leave to defend the suit. The writ of summons was served upon the defendant on September 28. The period for obtaining the summons expired on October 9. The applicant in his affidavit states that owing to an attack of strong malarial fever, he was unable to take steps in time in the matter.2. The application is made under Rule 193 of the High Court Rules That rule provides as follows:-193. (1) The application for leave to appear and defend n suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be made by summons. Such summons shall be taken out within 10 days from the date of the service of the Writ of Summons, and it shall be returnable not lees than 4 clear days after service. The summons shall be supported by an affidavit or affidavite. (2) If no such summons is taken out by the defendant within the aforesaid period or within such fu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »