Mumbai Court December 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.
Ranchhod Raghunath Patel Vs. Ravjibhai Nathabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR631; 95Ind.Cas.847
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 2,000 from plaintiff No. 1 as guardian of plaintiff No. 2 in Aso 1974, and the defendant in respect of this liability had executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff No. 1 in Uttarsanda on October 10, 1918 (the 5th of Aso Sud, 1974). A certain amount had been paid in 1920, and after giving credit to defendant for what had been paid, the plaintiffs claimed a balance.2. The document signed by the defendant appears to us to come within the definition of a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was conceded that the plaintiff No. 1 by adding the words 'the guardian of Patel Shanabhai Aishabhai a minor ' made a material alteration which prevented him from suing on the note. The suit was dismissed on this ground by the trial Judge, who at the same time found on the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the D...
ishvar Dadu Patil Vs. Gajabai Babaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR782
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. I have had the privilege of reading the very exhaustive judgments of my Hindu colleagues, Shah and Madgavkar JJ., and, agreeing with them as I do, there is no occasion for me to add much to my referring judgment. In Yadao v. Namdeo, the fact that the lower appellate Court had found that Pandurang died as a member of the joint family made it necessary for the appellant's counsel to refer to the decision in Ramji v. Ghamau, and to argue that, even if Pandurang died joint, Champabai was entitled to adopt again to her husband. But, once it was held by the Privy Council that Pandurang separated at the time of his adoption, the decision in Ramji v. Ghamau was no obstacle to the success of the appellant, and the power of ft Hindu widow in a joint family to adopt was no longer in issue, The appellant asks us to hold . that it has been definitely decided by the Privy Council that such a widow, according to the principles of Hindu law prevailing in the Southern Marath...
Mahomed Azam Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom178
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 whitewashing 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 t...
Ranchhod Raghunath Patel and ors. Vs. Ravjibhai Nathabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom357
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 2,000 from Plaintiff No. 1 as guardian of Plaintiff No. 2 in Aso 1974, and the defendant in respect of this liability had executed a promissory note in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 in Uttarsanda on October 10, 1918 (the 5th of Aso Sud, 1974). A certain amount had been paid in 1920, and after giving credit to defendant for what had been paid, the plainttiffs claimed a balance.2. The document signed by the defendant appears to us to come within the definition of a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was conceded that the Plaintiff No. 1 by adding the words 'the guardian of Patel Shanabhai Ashabhai a minor' made a material alteration which prevented him from suing on the note. The suit was dismissed on this ground by the trial Judge, who at the same time found on the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the District Judge...
Abheraj Umarkhan Malek and ors. Vs. Dolatsangji Surajmalji Desai and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.17
1. In Suit No. 199 of 1898 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad a decree was passed against the plaintiff's father on July 23, 1898, for Rs. 36,657 with running interest at six per cent, payable by instalments in favour of defendants Nos. 2.and 3. The plaintiff's father died on February 6, 1901 without having paid off any part of the decretal amount. Thereafter, the District Court appointed the plaintiff's mother to be the personal guardian of the minor and the Collector to be the guardian of the estate of the minor. The plaintiff attained majority on February 20, 1918. Meanwhile, a darkhast was issued in 1906 and the proceedings were transferred to the Collector, so that the minor's property could be sold in execution. Eventually, the Collector qua guardian agreed to sell a portion of the minor's property for Rs. 43,000 to the father of the present defendant No. 1. Rupees 8,000 were paid in cash. Then defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the decree-holders, certified sat...
Lal Chand Marwari Vs. Ramrup Gir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR855
Blanesburgh, J.1 These are consolidated appeals by the defendants in four out of eight suits instituted by one Ramrup Gir in the Court of the First Class Sub-Judge at Muzafferpur on November 30, 1916. The suits were brought on the allegation that the plaintiff, as the then Mahant of an asthal or math at Paprikhan Karan, was entitled to recover from the defendants different properties, endowments of the math, then in their possession These properties had, it was alleged, been alienated without warrant by Bhawan Gir, deceased, the immediate predecessor as mahant of the plaintiff. The suits, as they progressed, were amended by the joinder as co-plaintiffs of three persons to whom in consideration of their supplying funds for the conduct of the litigation Ramrup Gir had agreed to transfer when recovered certain portions of the properties in question. As so amended they were heard at length by the learned Subordinate Judge, and, on appeal, by the High Court at Patna, where many issuee were ...
Emperor Vs. Achaldas Jethamal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR293
Marten, J.1. It is unnecessary in this case to define the reasons for which a Magistrate may properly commit a case to the Sessions. Nor need we decide which of the two conflicting views are correct, namely, whether a Magistrate's powers of commital are confined to cases where he considers he cannot give an adequate punishment, or whether he may take into consideration other grounds such as are enunciated by Mr, Justice Heaton and Mr, Justice Shah in Emperor v. Bhimaji Venkaji I.L.R.(1917) 42 Bom. 172 :and Emperor v. Nanji Samal I.L.R. (1917)42 Bom. 172 :20 Bom. L.R. 89. In either event the Magistrate has to state his reasons for committing to the Sessions a case, which he himself is competent to try. There are authorities in this Court to show that if he gives no reasons whatever as in Emperor v. Nanji Samal I.L.R. (1913) 38 Bom. 114 : 15 Bom. L.R. 999 or if he gives reasons which are bad in law as in Emperor v. Bhimaji Venhaji, then this Court has jurisdiction to quash the committal ...
Jawahir Singh Vs. Udai Parkash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR851
About the year 1900, H, managing member of a joint Hindu family, mortgaged its ancestral property to G, and later, with a view to redeeming this mortgage, negotiated to sell the property to U for Rs. 18,000, The sale-deed was prepared, but, beforeis could be executed, one I sued for and was decreed his customary right of pre-emption of the property at the same figure, Rs. 13,000. In the meantime, during the pendency of the pre-emption suit, G's mortgage debt was paid off, and when ultimately the pre-emption sale was executed, H, the vendor,executed a receipt for Rs. 12,000, which included re-payment of Rs. 1,400 due for money lent, with interest, on a promissory note by D about 1900. H appropriated the moneyreceived to his own use. His eldest; son, however, on attaining majority, did not impugn the sale ; but the younger sons in 1919 brought an action to set it aside. D contended that (1) the sale had been for good consideration, and for legal necessity, to pay off the antecedent debts...
Emperor Vs. Achaldas Jethamal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom251
Marten, J.1. It is unnecessary in this case to define the reasons for which a Magistrate may properly commit a case to the Sessions. Nor need we decide which of the two conflicting views are correct, namely whether a Magistrate's powers of committal are confined to cases where he considers he cannot give an adequate punishment, or whether he may take into consideration other grounds such as are enunciated by Mr. Justice Heaton and Mr. Justice Shah in Emperor v. Bhimaji Venkaji [1917] 42 Bom. 172 and Emperor v. Nauji Samal [1913] 38 Bom. 114 . In either event the Magistrate has to state his reasons for committing to the Sessions a case, which he himself is competent to try. There are authorities in this Court to show that if he gives no reasons whatever as in Emperor v. Nanji Samal [1913] 38 Bom. 114,or if he gives reasons which are bad in law as in Emperor v. Bhimaji Venkaji [1917] 42 Bom. 172 then this Court has jurisdiction to quash the committal as being bad in law within the meanin...
Purshottam Hurjivan Vs. Navanitlal Hurgovandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR148; 94Ind.Cas.15
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Tara-porewala J, on a notioe of motion taken out by the petitioner in the course of the proceedings he had instituted under the Guardians and Wards Act for his appointment as guardian of the person and property of his minor wife.2. On April 17, the Judge announced that he would dismiss the petition, but would deliver his judgment giving his reasons therefor after the vacation.3. On April 21, an article was published in the Sanj Vartaman headed: 'Sensational case in the Bania community in Bombay.4. It is admitted that Purshottam Hirji had got the article written out by his clerk, and had sent the clerk with it to the Sanj Vartaman for publication. Thereupon the petitioner gave notice to the editor of the Sanj Vartaman, Purshottam Harji, and M.N. Mehta, the clerk, that the Court would be moved for an order committing thorn for contempt of Court.5. The matter came on before Taraporewala J. on June 18. A number of affidavits ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »