Mumbai Court October 1925 Judgments
Umaji Krishnaji Sonavni Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom226
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 cress-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: AIR1926Bom431
Macleod, 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.2. 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 contract the ...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Khushal Shet Gujur Vs. Ganpati Gopal Risbud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR750
Fawcett, J.1. The first question before us is, whether the lower Courts have erred in holding that the plaintiff has a right to bring the present suits. On this point there is the decision in Ahmed v. Ganesh : AIR1923Bom462 , 525 that the temporary attachment of the village would not affect the other rights which the Khot might have independently of the right of management. Such right of management would, of course, cover acts such as letting out waste or uncultivated lands in the village, which he can do in his capacity as a Khot: see Secretary of State v. Wasudeo I.L.R(1907). 31 Bom. 466 But here we are concerned with a condition against the alienation of certain Khoti Nisbat lands without his consent. In my view such a condition would be part of the terms of the tenancy on which the lands were held, and the Khot would still be the landlord inspite of the Government attachment. Section 160, paragraph 1, of the Bombay Land Revenue Code shows that an attachment under that section is ma...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Khushal Shet Gujar and ors. Vs. Ganpati Gopal Risbud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom410
Fawcett, J.1. The first question before us is, whether the lower Courts have erred in holding that the plaintiff has a right to bring the present suits. On this point there is the decision in Ahmed Babu v. Ganesh Vishnu A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 462 that the temporary attachment of the village would not affect the other rights which the Khot might have independently of the right of management. Such right of management would, of course, cover acts such as letting out waste or uncultivated lands in the village, which he can do in his capacity as a Khot : see Secretary of State v. Wasudeo [1907] 31 Bom. 456. But here we are concerned with a condition against the. alienation of certain Khotinisbat lands without his consent. In my view, such a condition would be part of the terms of the tenancy on which the lands were; held, and the Khot would still be the, landlord in spite of the Government attachment. Section 160, paragraph 1, of the Bombay Land Revenue Code shows that an attachment under that se...
Tag this Judgment!Vana Khushal Patil Vs. Ratilal Bhaidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR510; 95Ind.Cas.549
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was transferred to the Collector for execution under Section 1(b) of the third schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. The property was put up for sale by the Mamlatdar on October 26, 1922, and knocked down to the highest bidder who made a deposit on the same day of one-fourth of the sale price. On November 10, the Collector directed that the remainder of the purchase-money should be collected. Under Order XXI, Rule 85, the full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property.2. However, we are not concerned in this case with the question whether the highest bidder complied with the conditions of the sale.3. On November 27, the applicant brought an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, to set aside the sale after making the necessary payment into Court, The lower Court rejected the application as time-barred not having been made within th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Satyadhyantirtha Swami Vs. Raghunath Daji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR743
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs claim to be permanent tenants of the Inamdar of their village, who is a Swami of a religious math, and sue for an injunction restraining the Swami and others from interfering with their possession of the suit lands. This relief was granted by the trial Court, and has been confirmed by the Assistant Judge on appeal. Both the Courts have held that, so far as the Indian Registration Act is concerned, the documents, Exhibits 24 and 25, which evidence the terms under which the plaintiffs got possession of the lands, are inadmissible in evidence, but that those documents can be looked at for the collateral purpose of ascertaining the origin and nature of the plaintiffs' possession of the lands; and that, with these in evidence, plaintiffs have proved that they are permanent tenants through adverse possession, so that they have a right of permanent tenancy. The main question in this appeal is whether the lower Courts have erred in holding that the plaintiffs were ...
Tag this Judgment!(Shri) Satyadhyantirtha Swami Vs. Raghunath Daji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom384
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs claim to be permanent tenants of the inamdar of their village, who is a Swami of a religious math and sue for an injunction restraining the Swami and others from interfering with their possession of the suit lands. This relief was granted by the trial Court, and has been confirmed by the Assistant Judge on appeal. Both the Courts have held that, so far as the Indian Registration Act is concerned, the documents, Exhibits 24 and 25, which evidence the terms under which the plaintiff got possession of the lands, are inadmissible in evidence, but that those documents can be looked at for the collateral purpose of ascertaining the origin and nature of the plaintiffs' possession of the lands; and that, with these in evidence, plaintiffs have proved that they are permanent tenants through adverse possession, so that they have a right of permanent tenancy. The main question in this appeal is whether the lower Courts have erred in holding that the plaintiffs were en...
Tag this Judgment!Ambanna Dharppa Akkavagol Vs. Kallappa Shivlingappa Alligi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR567
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs arrested the defendant in execution of the decree in suit No. 382 of 1921 passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur. The defendant was described in the decree as a 'trader'; and the defendant who consented to a decree being passed against him in terms of the compromise is now claiming the trial of an issue whether or not he is an agriculturist. When he was arrested in execution of the decree, he claimed protection under Section 21 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, which provides that no agriculturist shall be arrested or imprisoned in execution of a decree for money passed whether before or after this Act comes into force.2. The Judge thought it was decided in Mulji v. Goverdhandas (1922) 21 Bom. L.R. 1291 that the defendant cannot raise a contention that he is an agriculturist) in execution, if he has not done so at the hearing. Accordingly, he directed that notice under Order XXI, Rule 37, should issue, Now in that case...
Tag this Judgment!Hormasji Bezonji Vs. Hajrat Yarkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR569
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a preliminary decree was passed in a mortgage suit under which the defendant had to pay Rs. 2,583-8-1 within six months of the decree, The six months expired on March 25,1918, An application was made on April 4, 1921, to make the decree final. The plaintiff relies, to save limitation, on two payments made by the defendant, the dates of which are not clearly set out in the judgment, but we are told that they were in July 1920, and it is argued that if those could be brought within Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act, the bar of limitation would be saved.2. The trial Court held that it could be inferred that there was a payment on account of interest as such, because the amount due was made up of principal and interest, and if the debtor paid anything on account of the debt, it could be said that he was paying on account of interest as such. He relied upon the following passage in Rustomji's Law of Limitation, 3rd Edn. p. 160:-Where money is p...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Ganesh Jog Vs. Ramabai Venkatesh Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR736; 95Ind.Cas.878
Fawcett, J.1. The appellants say that they are entitled in execution proceedings to prove that they are agriculturists, and that, therefore, provisions of Section 71 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act are applicable in their case. The decree that was passed against them was one granting an application to file an award and passing a decree in terms of the award. No question of the status of the defendants as agriculturists or otherwise was raised either in the proceedings prior to the award or in the proceedings in Court after the filing of the award, and such a question would not have been relevant. The case of Mulji v. Goverdhandas : AIR1923Bom36 which has been relied upon by the lower Court in support of its view that the appellants, defendants Nos. 5 and 8, cannot now plead that they are or were agriculturists, is not applicable; because it cannot be said that it has already been impliedly decided that they are not agriculturists. But the question still remains whether the pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »