Mumbai Court March 1925 Judgments
Bai Samju Vs. Lallubhai Talsibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom476; (1925)27BOMLR958
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The trial Judge has held that the property sought to be attached is a recognised sub-division of a Narva and is therefore liable to the process of the Court under the provisions of Bombay Act V of 1862. On the evidence produced before the Judge, it appeared that the judgment-debtor Manibhai, now represented by the appellants, originally was the proprietor of a recognised sub-division of a Narva measuring lie 0, Anna 1, Pie 1. Twelve years ago eight gunthas were separated from that land for the purpose of building a bungalow. These eight gunthas were separately assessed, and Manibhai sold the site with the bungalow without any objection being raised thereto by the revenue authority. In fact, we may take it that the revenue authority recognised that site as being separately assessed and capable of being transferred by itself. The judgment-debtor, however, contends that it still remains a part of the Narva, so that the land still remaining to him after the sepa...
Tag this Judgment!Nanalal Lallubhai Vs. Chhotalal Narsidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom519
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit as a Small Causes suit to recover money awarded to him against the defendant by an oral award delivered in July 1919. The suit was filed on March 8, 1924. The defendant pleaded: (1) that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction as the case came within Item 24 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act; (2) that the suit was barred by limitation. The Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim. Now item 24 in the Second Schedule refers to a suit to contest an award. The award in this case is admitted. The plaintiff is only seeking to recover what was awarded to him. It is, therefore, not a suit to contest an award, and the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction. Reference may be made to Simson v. McMaster [1890] 13 Mad. 344 2. Then the defendant says that this is a suit for money; the period of limitation is, therefore, three years. The plaintiff says that a suit to enforce an award comes under Article 120. In Rajmal Girdkarlal v....
Tag this Judgment!Bai Samju and ors. Vs. Lallubhai Talsibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.1034
1. The Trial Judge has held that the property sought to be attached is a recognized sub-division of a narwa and is, therefore, liable to the process of the Court under the provisions of Bombay Act. V of 1862. On the evidence produced before the Judge, it appeared that the judgment-debtor Manibhai, now represented by the appellants, originally was the proprietor of a recognized sub-division of a narva measuring Re. 0-1-1. Twelve years ago eight gunthas were separated from that land for the purpose of building a bungalow. These eight gunthas-wore separately assessed, and Manibhai sold the site with the bungalow without any objection being raised thereto by the Revenue Authority, in fact, we may take it that the Revenue Authority recognized that site as being separately assessed and capable of being transferred by itself. The judgment debtor, however, contends that it still remains a part of the narva, so that the land still remaining to him after the separation of eight gunthas can no lo...
Tag this Judgment!Jeranchod Bhogilal Vs. Dakore Temple Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR872
John Edge, J.1. This case has come before their lordships in the form of an appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of the High Court of Bombay. On March 31, 1920, the High Court certified that the appeal involved a substantial question of law and was otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council, and on July 26, 1920, the High Court admitted the appeal and ordered notice to be given to the respondents. The question which their lordships have to consider is whether the appeal lay. For that purpose it is necessary to refer as briefly as possible to the history of the case to see if any appeal in this case to His Majesty in Council arose or was admissible.2. The case relates to the management of a public Hindu temple at the village of Dakore which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, In the temple is installed the Idol of Shri Ranchhod Raiji, which is much revered by Hindus. Disputes arose as to the management of the temple and at ...
Tag this Judgment!Probhudas Vs. Ganidada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR855
Shaw, J.1. The Courts below agreed. The question which arises has reference to the taxation upon sugar and the point involved is represented to be of very great general importance to all mercantile communities in India which deal with that article.2. Their lordships are satisfied that both the Courts below have come to a just conclusion.3. From the documents produced with the stated case it is clear that the subject of sugar taxation, and particularly the methods of its imposition, have been for some time a matter of concern to the dealers in the article and of communication with the Government of India.4. It is to be noted that in 1911 a letter was addressed by the Under Secretary to the Indian Government Department of Commerce and Industry to the Secretary of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce at Calcutta. The letter noted previous correspondence and in particular that it had been represented by the Karachi Chamber of Commerce supported by the Bengal and Bombay Chambers of Commerce that ...
Tag this Judgment!Udoychand Panalal Vs. P.E. Guzdar and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR867
Dunedin, J.1. The question raised by this petition is as to the meaning of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code. The circumstances which have given rise to it are peculiar and complicated. They arise out of a contract for sale of goods made by the respondents with the petitioner. In the contract of sale there was a provision that all disputes arising out of the sale should be settled by arbitration. A dispute did arise and cross-claims were made. The parties commenced arbitration proceedings, but disagreed as to appointment of arbitrators. An arbitrator appointed by the respondents made an ex parte award in their favour, but this was set aside by the Court. New arbitrators chosen in a manner ordered by the Court were then appointed. Another ex parte award was made and this also was set aside. Against this order setting it aside the respondents appealed. The petitioner then filed a suit claiming the damages he had sought in the arbitration. This was met by an application to stay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Trimbak Gadre Vs. Amritrao Raghojirao Damale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom501; (1925)27BOMLR951
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The original plaintiff Raghoji Yeshvantrao tiled this suit in the year 1913 to redeem the land described in Schedule A to the plaint and to take possession thereof after taking accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, He alleged that the lands were mortgaged on June 9,1885, to the defendants' father for Rs. 2,000 to 2,500 but that the defendants' father taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff's intellect took a sale-deed from the plaintiff with regard to all his lands and Inami Haks agreeing to reconvene them when the amount due to him would be paid off. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was an agriculturist; and an issue was raised whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist. That issue was found in the affirmative. Before the suit came on for hearing the plaintiff died and his son Amritrao was placed on the record as his legal representative, An issue was then raised whether Amritrao was an agriculturist in 1916'-17 when he was...
Tag this Judgment!Ulawappa Basawaneppa Hugar Vs. Gadigewa Hugar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom477; (1925)27BOMLR948
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the site described in the plaint The defendants replied that the site did not belong to plaintiffs; that it belonged to the defendants; that the plaintiffs were never in possession; and that as they were not in possession within twelve years next before suit, the suit was time-barred.2. The trial Court held that the suit site belonged to the plaintiffs; that it was in their possession within twelve years next before suit, and that the suit was not barred by limitation.3. In appeal the District Judge referred to the sanad issued to the plaintiffs in 1902 under Section 183 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Judge said :-The sanad means that the plaintiffs' father was at that time registered in the Collector's books as the occupant of No 274, The Collector's books are kept for the purposes of revenue. They indicate the person who is or would be liable for the payment of land assessment. They do not indicate any tit...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Dahyabhai Vs. Gordhandas Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom480; (1925)27BOMLR967
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. One Thakor Girdhar had filed a petition to be adjudicated insolvent on July 17, 1922. The order of adjudication was made on November 11, 1922. An application was made to the Subordinate Judge on which notice was issued to Nagindas Dayabhai to show cause why the transfer dated November 2, 1920, by the insolvent in his favour should not be annulled under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. The following issues were raised :-1 Whether the transfer to the opponent dated November 2, 1920, is or is not in good faith and for valuable consideration ?2. Whether the application is barred by limitation ?3. Whether the present applicant can apply under Section 63 of the Insolvency Act ?2. The Judge found that the transfer was not in good faith or for valuable consideration; that the application was not barred by limitation; and that the present applicant could apply un...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. P.B. Ponde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR612
Coyajee, J.1. The petitioners in this case ask this Court to revise an order made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on February 20,1925, authorising their detention in the custody of the police till March 6, and pray that it may ' be ordered that the accused should not be kept in Police custody any longer but should be ordered to be kept in jail custody.'2. The material facts are these :-On or about January 22, the petitioners were arrested in Indore for being concerned in offences punishable under as. 302, 307, 365, 120B, 109 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, The offences, it is alleged, were committed in the city of Bombay; and the petitioners were arrested in Indore by the Indore State Police at the instance of Inspector Smith of the Criminal Investigation Department, Bombay. On February 4, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, on the application of Inspector Smith, addressed a letter to the Agent to the Governor General in Central India asking him to make a demand to the Darbar for sur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »