Mumbai Court April 1925 Judgments
Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1064
Shaw, J.1. The questions raised by this appeal are of a wide and general importance. They have reference to the control and worship of a Hindu family idol. It may be explained that although one idol is referred to, called of course the Thakur, there were two others, the Thakurani, a female idol referred to in some of the papers as the consort of the Thakur, and there was also a third, a sacred or deified stone called the Salgram Sila. These three idols became the objects of the pious worship of the family of the founder, Mutty Lal Mullick, who originally installed them. But the points in the case can be more simply treated by referring to the one, namely the principal idol the Thakur.2. The appeal is from a decree dated April 10, 1923, made by the High Court in Calcutta in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction reversing a decree dated June 1, 1922, made by the same Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction.3. The case was argued at great length, and a large mass of authorities was cited.4. B...
Tag this Judgment!Kishoredas P. Mangaldas Vs. Ahmed Suleman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom516; (1925)27BOMLR1086; 94Ind.Cas.564
Shah, J. 1. This is one of the three suits in which the question arises as to whether after the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act, II of 1918, has ceased to apply to a particular set of premises, the tenant is entitled to a fresh notice to terminate the tenancy oven though a notice terminating the tenancy has been given by the landlord during the time when the act was in operation. This particular suit has been fully heard and the parties have adduced evidence on all the points At the instance of the learned Counsel for the defendants in the other two suits I have heard the parties in those suits also on the question of notice, which is common to all these three suits. But in dealing with the point 1 shall refer only to the facts of this case. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of a certain shop, which is described as shop No. 3, situated at the junction of Shaikh Memon Street and Janjirkar Street and which is one of a group of shops known as Green Market, The defendant was a mo...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Santu Sintre Vs. Balkrishna Keshav Shetye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom398; (1925)27BOMLR937
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant from certain premises which had been rented by him. The defendant pleaded that the premises were used as a dwelling house and claimed protection under the Bombay Kent (War Restrictions) Act, 1918. That Act is to remain in force up to December 31, 1925, in respect of any premises used as a dwelling house, and up to August 31, 1924, in respect of any other premises by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 of Bombay Act III of 1923. If, then, the defendant could show that the premises occupied by him were used as a dwelling house, he would be entitled to protection. The evidence before the Judge with regard to the character of the occupation is somewhat meagre. It was admitted by the defendant that he worked as a tailor on the premises, but he said in cross-examination that he used the premises as his residence, and had been residing therein for five or six years. If, then, as a matter of fact the defendant and his fami...
Tag this Judgment!Balabhai Raghunath Agaskar Vs. Motabhai Babaji Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom473; (1925)27BOMLR906
Coyajee, J.1. The questions in this appeal arise upon the proper construction of a deed of trust executed on May 1, 1889, by a Hindu gentleman, Janardan Wassoodev. The table set out at p. 53 of the paper-book shows the relationship of the persons interested in these questions. The settlor's descendants who were in existence at the date of the said deed were : his son Raghunath; his two daughters Krishnabai and Pootlabai; five sons of Raghunath; six sons of Krishuabai; Anandrao son of his predeceased daughter; and Sonabai, the daughter of Pootlabai.2. The settlor died in the year 1894. Krishnabai died in 1897, all her six sons surviving her; but three of them died between 1912 and 1919. Pootlabai died in February 1898 leaving Sonabai who is a party to these proceedings. Anaudrao died in August 1898 leaving a son Venkat. On Venkat's death in 1921, it was held in certain proceedings, to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail, that as he was not in existence at the data of the said tru...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Thakordas Motiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom505; (1925)27BOMLR1023
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On June 28, 1923, a complaint was filed before the Honorary Special Bench Magistrates, Bander, by the Town Daroga of the Rander Municipality against two persons, Thakordaa Motiramand Jamnadas Narandas.2. The complaint stated that the house of accused No. 1 was situated at Tika 3, Survey No. 57A. in the Parekh Moholla, Permission had been given to him to build the house on February 8, 1923, and the Rajachithi had been taken on his behalf by accused No. 2 It was mentioned in the Rajachithi that the house was to be built after leaving open the land within the alignment. In spite of that, building within the alignment was commenced on March 4. Notice was sent to stop the work on March 7, but the building continued. On May 7, the Managing Committee passed a resolution ordering the complainant to institute criminal proceedings. The complaint was accordingly made under Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, and also under Section 153 as the accused refuse...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitsing Manibhai Vs. Grunning and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR998; 94Ind.Cas.969
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are a firm carrying on business in cotton in Liverpool.2. They have tiled this suit through their constituted attorney in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad against the firm of Chandrasing M. Jeaingbhai by its partners and managers (1) Ajitsing Manibhai, (2) Chandrasing Manibhai, a minor by his next friend, to recover damages amounting to Rs. 13,870-4-0 and interest and the costs of a solicitor's bill. In the first place it must be noted that the title of the plaint is not correct. Under Order XXX, Rule 1, any two or more persons being liable as partners and carrying on business in British India may be sued in the name of the firm. In such a case the proper title of the defendant is : 'A B a firm carrying on business in partnership at,' See Appendix A to the Civil Procedure Code, (2) 'Description of parties in particular cases.' Rule 3 provides for the manner of service of the summons where persons are sued as partners...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhordas Mathradas Vs. Vallabhdas Kanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR699
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case leave to appeal to the Privy Council was obtained by the defendants. Thereafter they took no steps to prosecute the appeal, and on October 18, 1923, the Registrar of the Privy Council addressed a letter to this Court as follows :-I have the honour to inform you that the appellants have taken no step in prosecution of the above appeal although four months have HOW elapsed since the date of the arrival of the record in England, and that by virtue of rule 84 of the Judicial Committee Rules 1908, the said appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution as from today without further order.I have accordingly to request you to be good enough to faring this communication before the Judges of your Court, in order that the necessary steps may be taken to terminate the proceedings. 2. Nothing further has been done. Therefore, it would be necessary for this Court to give directions in accordance with the Registrar's letter with regard to the costs of the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Gopalkrishna Chandavarkar Vs. Basappa Rudrappa Dandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom416; (1925)27BOMLR934
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the suit property was not liable for the satisfaction of the decree obtained by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 2 in Suit No. 564 of 1914 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bagalkot on November 1, 1915. The first defendant had obtained a decree against the second defendant and his father, who was adjudicated an insolvent on November 10, 1916, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Belgaum. The plaintiff was a receiver of the estate of the insolvent father of defendant No. 2. The suit property had been attached before judgment in Suit No. 564 on December 20, 1914. After succeeding in the suit defendant No. 1 filed dark hast No. 271 of 1916 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bel gaum, on June 29, 1916, and the property in suit was again attached by that Court. When the second defendant's father was adjudicated insolvent, the attachment on his interest of the property would have to be released, and hi...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Shankar Joshi Vs. Yusuff Nurmahamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom488; (1925)27BOMLR963
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Merwanji had several money decrees standing against him. In execution of one of them, the Thana First Class Court attached a certain land belonging to him on May 25, 1916. About the same time in execution of another decree the Panvel Second Class Court also attached the same property. The fact that the Thana Court had attached the property had not been brought to the notice of the Panvel Court.2. Under Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, where property not in the custody of any Court is under attachment in execution of decrees of more Courts than one, the Court which shall receive or realize such property, and shall determine any claim thereto, and any objection to the attachment thereof, shall be the Court of highest grade. Sub-section (2) says that nothing in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any proceeding by a Court executing one of such decrees.3. The Thana Court sold the property on February 28, 1917, and the Panvel Court sold the same...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Kanji Vs. Ranchhordas Mathradas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom471
Macleod, C.J.1. In this case leave to appeal to the Privy Council was obtained by the defendants. Thereafter they took no steps to prosecute the appeal, and on October 18, 1923, the Registrar of the Privy Couucil addressed a letter to this Court as follows:I have the honour to inform you that the appellants have taken no steps in prosecution of the above appeal although four months have now elapsed since the date of the arrival of the record in England, and that by virtue of Rule 34 of the Judicial Committee Rules, 1908, the said appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution as from to-day without further order.I have accordingly to request you, to be good enough to bring this communication before the Judges of your Court, in order that the necessary steps may be taken to terminate the proceedings.2. Nothing further has been done. There-fore, it would be necessary for this Court to give directions in accordance with the Registrar's letter with regard to the costs of the application for l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »