Mumbai Court December 1925 Judgments
Shankar Govind Pathak Vs. Balkrishna Shankar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR521; 94Ind.Cas.783
Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.1. We do not agree with the order of January 17, 1925, directing the suit to be struck off the file. The mistake which came in the plaintiff's way was due to the default of the Erandol Judge, who ought to have in the first instance returned the plaint with regard to the whole of the causes of action therein. Instead of doing that, he referred the plaintiff to the Dhulia Court in regard to a portion of the claim, thinking at that time that he could deal with the remainder. Thereafter, he changed his mind and found that he could not deal with the remainder of the claim. There is no reason why on that account the plaintiff should be debarred from prosecuting his claim in the Dhulia Court, either on the original plaint, or on the certified copy which was continued to be used in the Erandol Court, till finally the Erandol Court declined to deal with any part of the suit.2. We think the original procedure adopted by the Erandol Judge was wrong. If he decided that he c...
Tag this Judgment!Kutubuddinkhan Ashrafkhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom238
Marten, J.1. In this case the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Poona, agreed with the unanimous verdict of the jury finding Accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty of forgery of a Will of one Shahjadi Begum, who died on the evening of May 9, 1925 here were other charges of extortion practised on Syed Husein her maid (Ex. 2), and of misappropriation of certain moneys. But on those two latter charges the accused were acquitted.2. Now the verdict of the jury being unanimous it is conceded that on appeal that verdict must, stand, subject to well-recognized but limited principles on which such verdict can be upset.3. It is conceded by counsel for the accused in his candid and telling speech that the summing up of the learned Judge was a fair one so far as it went. The only criticism passed upon it was one really of omission in some two or three points. Only one of these points appears to us to have any substance in it and it is more perhaps a point of mis-reception of evidence than any mere defect ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantrao Govindrao Prabhakar and ors. Vs. Nanabhai Sadanand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom273
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for the redemption of two properties, hereinafter called the Girgaon property and the Mahim property respectively, after taking an account of the two mortgages mentioned in the plaint. The following pedigree is necessary for the purposes of this judgment. Madhoba Harischandra | Atmaram | |-----------------|-----------------------| Ganpatrao Anandrao Shamrao =Manekbai | |----------------------------|--------------|--------------| Wamarnao Ramrao Vinayakrao Madhavrao =Bablibai | Sushilabai2. The original Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 were Wamanrao, Vinayakrao and Madhavarao, while Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 were the executors of Maneckbai, widow of Gunpatrao. In 1869 Madhoba negotiated with one Shrikrishna Naranji for a loan of Rs. 82,000 to be secured on the Girgaon property. An agreement was arrived at whereby Shrikrishna Naranji was to advance Rs. 82,000 on a deposit of the title deeds of the Girgaon property and Madhoba was to purchase the Mahim ...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Jayram Khole Vs. Swadeshi Vyapari Mandali Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR944
Marten J.1. It has been found in both the Courts below that the surety bond, Exhibit 18, was not executed and passed on the date, which it now bears, via, May 31, 1922, but in October 1920. The present is a case between a surety and the person guaranteed, and is accordingly one where the utmost goodfaith is required. Prime facie, therefore, an alteration in the date of the document, while it is in the possession of the person guaranteed, would be a breach of that goodfaith,2. I need refer only to two cases, via., Code ychand Boodaji v. Bhaskar Jagonnath I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 239 and Govindasami v. Kuppusami I.L.R. (1881) 6 Bom. 371 to illustrate that proposition, Code yohand v. Bhaskar was a case before Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Melvill, in which there had been an alteration in the rate of interest in one of the clauses of a promissory note. The Court held that the alteration vitiated the note, although the clause so altered was a final clause to which, even if unaltered, the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Jayram Khole and ors. Vs. Swadeshi Vyapari Mandali Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom491
Marten, J.1. It has been found in both the Courts below that the surety bond, Exhibit 18, was not executed and passed on the date, which it now bears, viz., May 31, 1922, but in October 1920. The present is a case between a surety and the person guaranteed, and is accordingly one where the utmost good faith is required. Prima facie, therefore, an alteration in the date of the document, while it is in the possession of the person guaranteed, would be a breach of that good faith.2. I need refer only to two oases, viz., Oodeychand Boodaji v. Bhaskar Jagonnath [1881] 6 Bom. 371 and Govindasami v. Ruppusami [1889] 12 Mad. 239 to illustrate that proposition. Oodeychand v. Bhaskar [1881] 6 Bom. 371 was a case before Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Melvill, in which there had been an alteration in the rate of interest in one of the clauses of a promissory note. The Court held that the alteration vitiated the note, although the clause so altered was a final clause to which, even if unaltere...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomedalli Allabux Vs. Jafferbhoy Abdullabhoy Lalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR264
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On July 9, 1925, the applicant obtained a rule nisi calling upon the second respondent to show cause why an order should not be passed directing the Taxing Master of the Court not to proceed with the bill of costs of the first respondent petitioner in the matter of election petition No, 2 of 1924, and not to issue the allocatur therein.2. The proceedings were under Section 45 of the Specific Belief Act.3. On the argument of the rule the applicant and the first respondent appeared by counsel, the second respondent submitted himself to the Court.4. The facts leading up to the application are not in dispute and were as follows:-At an election held on November 5, 1923, the applicant and another candidate were declared by the Returning officer to have been duly elected for the Bombay Legislative Council by the Bombay City Mahommedan Urban constituency. The first respondent was an unsuccessful candidate. Thereafter he presented a petition to the Governor, under Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomedalli Allabux Vs. Jafferbhoy Abdullabhoy Lalji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom247
Macleod, C.J.1. On July 9, 1925, the applicant obtained a rule nisi calling upon the second respondent to show cause why an order should, not be passed directing the Taxing Master of the Court not to proceed with the bill of costs of the first respondent-petitioner in the matter of Election Petition No. 2 of 1924, and not to issue the allocatur therein.2. The proceedings were under Section 45 of She Specific Relief Act.3. On the argument of the rule the applicant and the first respondent appeared by counsel; the second respondent submitted himself to the Court.4. The facts leading up to the application are not in dispute and were as follows : At an election held on November 5, 1928, the applicant and another candidate were declared by the returning officer to have been duly elected for the Bombay Legislative Council by the Bombay City Muhammadan Urban constituency. The first respondent was an unsuccessful candidate. Thereafter he presented a petition to the Governor, under Rule 30 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabai Jehangir Mistri Vs. Dinshaw Edulji Karkaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR391
Crump, J.1. This suit came on for hearing on November 20, and issues were raised and some evidence was recorded. The suit then stood adjourned to November 24, and on that day the Advocate-General appeared for the defendant and stated that one defence only was raised, viz., that the suit was not maintainable. At the same time he reiterated the offer of Rs. 1,000 in full settlement which had been made at the first hearing but this the plaintiff declined to accept unless defendant undertook to pay her costs.2. In the circumstances it is only necessary to deal with the pleadings so far as the question of the maintainability of the suit. The action is one for slander, and it must be taken that the allegations in the plaint are established and that the defendant did use the words set out in para 5 of the plaint. There is now no question of privilege or of any other defence than that already set out, and the only further question which can arise is an to the quantum of damages.3. The point ta...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Bapurao Gadre Vs. Hubli Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR519; 94Ind.Cas.660
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner filed a petition in the District Court at Dharwar praying for a declaration that the election of opponents Nos. 1 to 4 as councillors of the Hubli Municipality, was illegal and void on account of the corrupt practices described in the petition, and further that he and opponent No. 5 should be declared as validly elected members of the Hubli Municipality. Opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, resisted the application on the grounds set out in their written statement They denied the corrupt practices attributed to them, and contended that the petition, not having been legally and properly presented to the District Judge, was barred by time.2. The first issue was whether the petition was or was not legally and properly presented to the District Judge within the prescribed time. The petition was as a matter of fact presented to the clerk of the Court of the District Judge within ten days of the declaration of the results of the elections for the Hubli Munici...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahomed Azam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR288
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this application is, first, whether on the death of a complainant the complaint necessarily abates and the accused is entitled to a discharge, and, secondly, whether, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the learned Magistrate was right in permitting the continuance of the complaint.2. The deceased complainant was a trustee of a mosque and complained that the petitioner who was not a trustee had pulled down the complainant's scaffolding and had erected his own scaffolding for white washing the mosque. The complainant charged the accused under Sections 426 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice was issued in the first instance, subsequently converted into a summons; and after several adjournments and before evidence was recorded, the complainant died. The petitioners-accused applied for a discharge on the ground that the complaint had abated by reason of the complainant's death. That application was rejected and it appears that subsequently the l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »