Mumbai Court April 1925 Judgments
Vishnu Shankar Joshi and ors. Vs. Yusuff Nur Mahamad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.962
Norman Macleod, 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 C.P.C., 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 trie same property on Marc...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Bhaskar Krishnaji Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom485; (1925)27BOMLR973
Shah, Ag. C.J.1. It will be convenient in this case to state the few facts which have given rise to this appeal. The Divisional Forest Officer, Western Division, Thana, by a proclamation dated June 25. 1920, invited tenders with reference to certain forest coupes in the Thana District. The tenders were to be submitted on or before August 5, 1920, 1 P. M. The plaintiff submitted a tender in the standard form for several coupes, including coupe No. 4 in Block No. XIX before 1 P. M. on August 5. He offered to take up that particular coupe for Rs. 12,299. Immediately after, however, he discovered that he had committed a mistake in that the sum offered was not intended for that particular coupe but for coupe No. 5, which was near coupe No. 4. At 4-30 on that day the plaintiff's son sent a petition requesting the officer not to sanction the tender for coupe No. 4 as it was submitted under a mistake. The plaintiff 'and his son also sent a telegram' which reached the Divisional Forest Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Devkaran Bholaram Vs. Sangidas Jesiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom386; (1925)27BOMLR694
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Justice Taraporewala striking out the defence of defendants Nos. 2 and 2A in an interpleader suit filed by P. Crystal & Co, in January 1923. The original dispute with regard to the money paid into Court by the plaintiffs was between the second defendant Devkaran Bholaram and the third defendants Messrs. Tullockchand and Shapurji a firm. The fourth defendant was afterwards added by the order of February 14, 192 . No order was made discharging plaintiff's and giving directions with regard to the procedure to be adopted for determining the questions in issue between the defendants. There seems to have been considerable delay in filing the written statements, and thereafter an order for affidavit of documents was obtained by the attorneys for the first, third and fourth defendants against the original second defendant on March 7, 1921. The original second defendant died on June IS, 1924, without having filed his affidav...
Tag this Judgment!A.H. Forbes Vs. L.E. Ralli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR860
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant in the Court of the Munsif at Araria in the district of Purnea to evict the defendants from certain lands he had leased to them in the year 1894.2. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif, as will be more particularly mentioned later in the course of this judgment. The Munsifs order was affirmed by the District Judge. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court, which was heard by a single Judge, Mr. Justice Boss, who reversed the judgment of the District Judge, and decreed the plaintiff's claim. On the defendants' appeal under the Letters Patent, a Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Mr, Justice Mullick, reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Ross, and agreeing with the District Judge, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. He now appeals to His Majesty in Council on the grounds that the High Court misconstrued the terms of the lease under which the defendants were let into possession, ...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Apte Vs. Tirmal Hanmant Savnur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom503; (1925)27BOMLR961
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed on May 28, 1903, in the Subordinate Judge's Court. The final decree was passed by the High Court on September Section 1908. The plaintiff applied for execution on December 21, 1921. The opponent against whom this proceeding was instituted contended that the property sought to be attached and sold was not liable for the decretal debt on the ground that it was in his possession as the grandson of the surety of the principal debtor, This contention found favour with the Subordinate Judge, and accordingly the application was dismissed.2. The judgment-creditor appealed, and although no question of limitation was raised in the grounds of appeal, the question of limitation was raised at the commencement of the argument before the District Judge. The respondent argued that as between the date of the decree and the date of the last application more than twelve years had elapsed, under Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code there could...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Narayan Patvardhan Vs. Balkrishna Sadashiv Modak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom451; (1925)27BOMLR1003; 94Ind.Cas.817
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit sued for the possession and income of certain property, claiming to be the heirs as the paternal aunt's sons of one Shankar Balkrishna who died in 1918 unmarried; the defendant resisted the claim on the ground that as the maternal uncle of the deceased, he was the nearest heir.2. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties and their ancestors: Maternal great grandfather Paternal great grandfather | | Maternal grandfather Paternal grandfather ----------------- ----------------------------- | | | | Balkrishna Mother = Father Paternal aunt (defendant) | | Shankar Narayan and two (Propositus) others (plaintiffs).3. The trial Judge without giving any reasons said that the plaintiffs were the preferential heirs of the deceased and passed a decree in their favour.4. The defendant appealed.5. The Joint Judge said .- 'The appellant as well as the respondents are sapindas to the deceased Shankar. Unquestionably the maternal...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ranchhod Harjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom479; (1925)27BOMLR1019
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged before the Third Class Magistrate of Umbergaon with having committed an offence under Sections 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty; but instead of sentencing him to punishment, the Magistrate discharged him after giving admonition under Sub-section (1A) of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on account of hie tender age. The District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court on the ground that the proviso to Section 562 is applicable to the whole of Section 562, including the newly added Sub-section (1A), so that the Third Class Magistrate was not competent to exercise powers under Section 562 (1A). It is unfortunate that when Sub-section (1A) was added to Section 562, the legislature did not place it before the proviso. Ordinarily speaking, when a proviso governs the whole of the provisions of a section, it ought to appear at the end. This proviso says that where any first offender is convicted by any Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sahebava Birappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom478; (1925)27BOMLR1022
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged before the First Glass Magistrate of Muddebihal with letting off for prostitution a minor girl, It appears that a certain ceremony was performed a year and a half ago, which consisted of tying Talimani, worshipping a basin of water, and distributing food. The Magistrate convicted this accused, but as she was a woman and her character in other ways was not in any way questioned, he proceeded under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, and ordered her to be let off on probation of good conduct for one year with one surety for Rs. 200 and a personal recognizance for a like amount. The District Magistrate of Bijapur refers the case to this Court and asks this Court to revise the First Class Magistrate's order and impose a sentence of imprisonment on the accused. If the accused had been found guilty of an an offence under Section 372, Indian Penal Code, no doubt a sentence of imprisonment would have been called for. But the performance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Diwanchand Kirparam Vs. Weld and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1488
Blanesburgh, J.1. The appellants in this case are general merchants carrying on business at Kasauli, and the respondents are cotton brokers and merchants at Liverpool with a branch office at Bombay.2. The business transactions between the two firms, carried out by the respondents through their Bombay house, commenced in the month of September, 1915, and had the appearance, at all events, of a succession of contracts for the purchase or sale of cotton for future delivery made by the respondents on the in-structions and for the account of the appellants. These purchases and sales on the appellants' side look, it must be confessed, very like gambling transactions, not intended to be completed, and never, in fact, completed either by the taking or the making or delivery of any cotton, Genuine contracts by the respondents were apparently in no way necessary to secure for the appellants all that they desired from their enterprise, and it was at one stage of the case strongly contended by the...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithialinga Mudaliar Vs. Srirangath Anni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR173
John Edge, J.1. These are nine consolidated appeals from a decree, dated November 15, 1916, of the High Court at Madras which varied a decree, dated September 4, 1908, of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapatam,2. The suit in which these appeals have arisen was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on July 2 1905, by three plaintiffs, who were reversionera of Arunachala Mudaliar, against thirty-eight defendants for the possession of lands which were alleged by the plaintiffs to be lands of the Kulikara estate in the District of Tanjore and for mesne profits. The title of the plaintiffs to sue was denied by the defendant on various grounds, of which those which are now important and have to be considered are whether the suit was not barred by the result of a litigation which began in 1887 and ended in a final decree in 1892, and whether the suit was not otherwise barred by the law of limitation. 3. The Kulikara estate admittedly belonged to Arunachala when he died in 1849. He was the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›