Mumbai Court November 1925 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.
Sidheshvar Martand Hagre and ors. Vs. Ganpatrao Baburao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom303
Macleod, C.J.1. This was a redemption suit filed by the plaintiffs, and after a somewhat varied career the suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge who directed the plaintiffs to recover possession of the property in suit, except Prat. No. 86, Survey No. 79, without paying anything to Defendant No. 1. That one land referred to was omitted from the order because in execution of a money a decree against the mortgagors, their equity of redemption in that property was sold.2. The appellate Judge allowed the plaintiffs to get possession of that Survey number as well, following the decision in Martand v. Dhondo [1897] 22 Bom. 624. Defendant No. 1 has appealed, and the respondent's pleader rightly admitted that the decision in Khiarajmal v. Daim [1904] 32 Cal. 296 governs the case, and the case of Martand v. Dhondo [1897] 22 Bom. 624 cannot now be considered as an authority, as was pointed out in Govindrao v. Waman [1909] S.A. No. 474 of 1909 (unreported) in this Court.3. The appellant, howe...
Siddeshwar Martand Hagre Vs. Ganpatro Bhaurao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.361
1. This was a redemption suit filed by the plaintiffs, . and after a somewhat varied career the suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge who directed the plaintiffs to recover possession of the property in suit, except Part. No. 86, Survey No. 79, without paying anything to defendant No. 1. That one land referred to was omitted from the order because, in execution of a money decree against the mortgagors, their equity of redemption in that property was sold.2. The Appellate Judge allowed the plaintiffs to get possession of that Survey Number as well, following the decision in Martand v. Dhondo 624 Ind. Dec. 998.3. Defendant No. 1 has appealed, and the respondents' Pleader rightly admitted that the decision in Khiarajmal v. Daim 7 Bom. L.R. 1 : 2 A.L.J. 71 : 1 C.L.J. 584 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 734 governs the case, and the case of Martand v. Dhondo 22 B 624 cannot now be considered as an authority, as was pointed out in Govindrao v. Waman S.A. No. 474 of 1909 in this Court.4. The appellant, h...
Nur Mahomed Husen Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR582
Norman Maeleod Kt., C.J.1. Three suits Nos. 8, 9, and 10 of 1924 were filed in the Court of the District Judge at Surat by certain owners of house property in Surat, situated at Nagda Tekra, Begampura, within the Surat City Municipal limits, against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the LandAcquisition Officer, Surat City, for injunctions restraining the defendants from taking possession of the properties which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer had acted without any authority as no proper order was passed under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act directing the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the properties in question,2. The only question raised before the District Judge was whether the Land Acquisition Officer, who had taken order for the acquisition of the properties, and had made the award, had acted illegally and without authority.3. Under Section 7 of the Land Acquisiton Act.Whenever any...
Nur Mahomed Husen Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom369
Macleod, C.J.1. Three suits, Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1924, were filed in the Court of the District Judge at Surat by certain owners of house property in Surat, situated at Nagda Tekra, Begampura, within the Surat City Municipal limits, against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Land Acquisition Officer, Surat City, for injunctions restraining the defendants from taking possession of the properties which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer had acted without any authority as no proper order was passed under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act directing the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the properties in question.2. The only question raised before the District Judge was whether the Land Acquisition Officer, who had taken order for the acquisition of the properties, and had made the award, had acted illegally and without authority.3. Under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act.Whenever any land sh...
Anandrao Bhicaji Sabnis Vs. Napu Patramal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR386; 94Ind.Cas.153
Mirza, J.1. The applicants by this summons ask for a declaration that they are entitled to a charge to the extent of Rs. 3,600 on a sum of Rs. 1715-8-4 and on another sum of Rs. 2,226-6-0 which sums are directed to be paid to the first defendant by the second defendant and the plaintiff respectively by a decree of this Court, The applicants are attorneys of this Court and represented both defendants Nos. land 2 in the proceedings which terminated in an order in favour of their client defendant No. 1. The applicants estimate their costs against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 jointly to amount to Rs. 7000. They have already received from defendant No. 2 a sum ofRs. 3,400 by way of advances and are now seeking to secure themselves for the payment of the balance of costs due to them by obtaining a charging order on the amounts payable under the decree to the first defendant by defendant No. 2 and by the plaintiff respectively. The plaintiff is a decree-holder against the first defendant in Suit N...
Valchand Dipchand Vs. Gulba Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR511; 95Ind.Cas.547
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case one Gulba valad Laxman filed a suit in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Shirpur in the District of Khandesh against one Valchand Dipcband to recover the price of cotton sold to him. After issues were framed the matter was referred to Mr. Jinsiwale, pleader, as arbitrator, who, after recording evidence, submitted his award, directing Valchand, the present petitioner, to pay Us. 986 with proportionate costs and future interest. A decree was passed in terms of the award and the defendant now asks this Court to interfere in revision on the ground that no notice was given of the filing of the award as required by paragraph 10 of the second schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. Under paragraph 10:-Where an award in a suit has been made, the persons who made it shall sign it and cause it to be filed in Court, together with any deposition and documents which have been taken and proved before them; and notice of the filing shall be given to ...
Hanmantram Surajmal Marwadi Vs. Shankarlal Abaji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR513; 95Ind.Cas.573
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession with arrears of rent of the suit property which consisted of houses. The defendant alleged that the property had been mortgaged by him to the plaintiff. He relied upon Exhibit 24 as evidence of the mortgage transaction. He did not plead that the notice given to him by the plaintiff was insufficient. The Judge in the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff holding that the defendant, not being an agriculturist, was disentitled from contending that the transaction Exhibit 24 was really a, mortgage and not a sale with the condition of repurchase within the period of two years.2. In appeal the defendant did not contest this finding, but confined himself to the question of notice and the question of damages. The Judge considered that Rule 2 of Order VIII applied to the case, and that as the appellant had not taken objection to the sufficiency of notice in the plaadings, it could not be raised later on. Rule ...
Dorabshah Bomanji Dubash Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom218
Fawcett, J.1. In this case a complaint, was made against the accused before the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for offences-under the Bombay City Municipal Act. The case was a summons one. The petitioner says that he only received the summons on June 23, the date fixed for his attendance being the 24th; that not having sufficient time at his disposal he could not instruct a pleader; so he merely sent his estate manager to the Court, believing that, if necessary, an adjournment would be granted; that on June 24, when the case was called on, the petitioner's manager was. asked, among other things, whether certain repairs had been carried out, to which he replied in the affirmative; and that nothing further was done by the learned Magistrate, who at once proceeded to make an order convicting the petitioner and fining him Rs. 30.2. This Court is asked to interfere on two grounds, firstly, that it is not true that; the manager pleaded guilty as recorded in the Magistrate's proceedings; and, s...
Emperor Vs. Shafi Ahmed Nabi Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR158
Dunedin, J.1. Their lordships have repeatedly announced that in dealing with petitions for special leave to appeal against sentences pronounced in the criminal Courts of the various Dominions of the King, they will not act as a Court of Criminal Appeal, and will not, to use the words of Lord Watson in Dillet's case (1887) 18 App. Cas. 459. advise His Majesty to ' review or interfere with the course of criminal proceedings, unless it is shown that, by a disregard of the forma of legal process, or by some violation of the principles of natural justice, or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done.2. In the present case the first point urged by the petitioners is that there had been such copious and prejudicial newspaper comment on the crime committed that a fair trial by a jury was impossible in Bombay.3. It is in the power of the Governor-General of India, if he thinks that in the state of public feeling a fair trial could not be obtained in the place where the offence wo...
Fakirgowda Bhimangowda Vs. Vishnudas Venkatdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR578
Norman Macleod Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover on a promissory note executed by defendant No. 1 on July 27, 19-0, in his favour for Rs. 9,395 found due at the foot of the dealings between the parties and a cash advance ofRs. 235 made on that date.2. Defendant No. 2 was the son of defendant No. 1 living in union with him. In their written statement, the defendants stated that defendant No. 2 was needlessly made a party, that defendant No. 1 passed the promissory note sued upon, that Rs. 235 was cash consideration, that an account should be taken as the defendants were agriculturists, that defendant No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 8,500 with the plaintiff after the date of the promissory note, and that the sale proceeds of certain cotton had yet to be accounted for.3. Issues were raised, and, on September 3, 1924, when the suit came on for hearing, defendant No. 1 was absent and his pleader had no instructions, A decree accordingly was passed for the amount claimed against both de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »