Mumbai Court July 1925 Judgments
Raghunath Rithkaran Vs. the Imperial Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom66; (1925)27BOMLR1229
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference from the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The occasion for the reference was due to the fact that there was a difference of opinion between the Judges of the Full Court.2. The plaintiffs tiled suit No. 2024/30524 of 1924 in the Small Cause Court to recover from the defendant, the Imperial Bank of India, the amount of Rs. 1,000, which the plaintiffs had paid to the defendant on December 22, 1921, under a mistake of fact. On that day four hundis were presented to the plaintiffs by the defendant for sums aggregating Rs. 7,000, They were all written by she same person. Two of the hundis were drawn by Dhanraj Suganchand for Rs. 1000 each. One of those was as a matter of fact not drawn on the plaintiffs. But by the carelessness of the plaintiffs this fourth hundi was treated as having been drawn on them, and so it was honoured The plaintiffs on the same day made entries in their hundi ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Trimbak Mantri Vs. Dattu Rama Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom55; (1925)27BOMLR1258
Fawcett, J.1. The finding of the two lower Courts on the issue remanded under this Court's judgment of March 25, 1924, is in the negative, that is to say that the defendants have failed to prove under the provisions of Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code that they are entitled to the presumption mentioned therein, so that they cannot be held to be permanent tenants with a duration of tenancy co-extensive with the duration of the tenure of their landlord, This negative finding is based on certain documentary evidence which, in the opinion of both the lower Courts, shows that the land in question was waste land belonging to the plaintiff's ancestor in about the year 1851 and that it was not cultivated by any tenant, whether the predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 or not, until at any rate some years later. This conclusion is not objected to by Dewan Bahadur Rao for the respondents. But he contends that the finding is not sufficient ground for saying that satisfactory evidence of...
Tag this Judgment!C. Soundara Rajan Vs. C.M. Natarajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR204
Viscount Haldane, J.1. The questions which arise for decision on this appeal relate to the construction and validity of the provisions of a will dated April 27, 1897, and made hy a Hindu G. Ratna Mudaliar, who died in 1904. He left a widow and three daughters. One of these daughters, Yesodammall, died in 1907 : another, Rajammal, in 1908; and the third Nilayathatchi Ammal, in 1918. Yesodammall had four children, as to three of them, two sons and a daughter, born belore the death of the testator in 1904, and as to one of them, born afterwards in 1907. Rajammal, the second daughter, had had a son Tirugnansambandam, who was born in 1907. This child was constituted a ward of Court in 1910. Nilayathatehi Ammal, the third daughter, had six children, three sons and three daughters, all born after 1904. Of these various families the three sons of the third daughter were plaintiffs in the suit and are appellants today, The others were defendants and are now respondents.2. It will be convenient ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muljibhai Hirabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom535; (1925)27BOMLR1063
Fawcett, J.1. In this case it is said that sanction is necessary for the prosecution of the applicant under Section 195 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code. This, however, assumes that the word 'Court' in that clause includes a Court in a Native State such as Baroda State. As at present advised, we do not think that that word can possibly be HO construed, and we may refer to Chanmalapa v. Abdul Vahal : (1910)12BOMLR977 in support of this view. Obviously there is a difficulty in supposing that the legislature intended that complaints or sanctions should be made or issued by Courts not within the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature but outside its control.Madgavkar, J.2. I agree. The opening words of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, 'no Court shall take cognizance,' clearly limit the meaning of the word 'Court' to British Indian Courts to which alone the British Indian Legislature could direct the prohibition which follows in the section. It is, therefore, difficult to attach a...
Tag this Judgment!Sourendra Mohan Sinha Vs. Hari Prasad Sinha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1126
John Edge, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of April 12, 1922, of the High Court at Patna, which varied a decree of June 17, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur.2. The suit in which these consolidated appeals have arisen was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur on February 5, 1915. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 11,81,811, principal and interest, alleged to be then due under a mortgage bond of December 21, 1896, for Rs. 3,50,000, of which Rs. 1,36,142 were advanced in cash, the balance being money alleged to be due under a previous bond of October 3, 1883, and for moneys advanced at various times, and for interest at various rates. The bond in suit provided that the principal sum of Rs. 3,50,000 was to carry seven and a half per centum compound interest with yearly rests. The principal was repayable in the month of Phagon, 1310 Fasli, the last day of which month was March 14, A.D. 1903, The bond was executed by till the adult male membe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Patel Muljibhai Hirabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom860
Fawcett, J.1. In this case it is said that sanction is necessary for the prosecution of the applicant under Section 195(1)(c), Criminal Procedure Code. This, however, assumes that the word 'Court' in that clause includes a Court in a Native State such as Baroda State. As at present advised, we do not think that word can possibly be so construed, and we may refer to Chanmalapa Chenbasapa v. Abdul Vahab (1910) 35 Bom. 139 in support of this view. Obviously there is a difficulty in supposing that the Legislature intended that complaints or sanctions should be made or issued by Courts not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Legislature but outside its control.Madgavkar, J.2. I agree. The opening words of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, 'No Court shall take cognizance' clearly limit the meaning of the word 'Court' to British Indian Courts to which alone the British Indian Legislature could direct the prohibition which follows in the section. It is, therefore, difficult to attac...
Tag this Judgment!N.H. Moos Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom47; (1925)27BOMLR1237
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there had been a consent award deciding that the value of the land to be acquired was Rs. 2,60,000. The only question then left was the apportionment of that sum between Government and the claimants who were in occupation of the land as toka tenants. An issue was raised whether Government were entitled to acquire their own interest in the toka land. In The Government of Bombay v. Esufali (1909) 12 Bom. L. R. 34 it was held that to acquire a piece of land under the Land Acquisition Act was not necessarily the same thing as to purchase the right of fee simple to it, but means the purchase of such interest as clogs the right of Government to use it for any purpose they like. Accordingly, if Government had no proprietary interest in the land to be acquired, but had only a right to levy assessment, with perhaps the additional right to increase the assessment according to certain conditions, still the land could be notified for acquisition, and the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Bombay Vs. Ranchordas Vandravandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom538; (1925)27BOMLR1130; 90Ind.Cas.695
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Plaintiffs Nos 1 to 5 in this suit are the trustees of the Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable Trust. As such trustees they are in possession of certain immoveable property which defendants Nos. 2 and 3 desire the Government of Bombay to acquire fur them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. Plaintiff No. 6 is in occupation of a portion of the property as the lessee from plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5.2. The plan of the land appears at p 23 of the print The land marked yellow was acquired by the Corporation in or about the year 1917 for certain purposes including the building of a Primary School, It does not seem, however, that up to now the Corporation has proceeded with the construction of the school. On September 27, 1 920, the Municipal Commissioner addressed a letter to the Corporation which appears at p. 23A of the print:-I have the honour to refer to Corporation Resolution No. 1609, dated June 14, 191(sic), approving of the acquisition of a site...
Tag this Judgment!Burjor F.R. Joshi Vs. Ellerman City Lines Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom449; (1925)27BOMLR1098
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit on August 20, 1923, claiming as an endorsee of a bill of lading for 280 tons of potatoes shipped on board the defendants' ship, The City of Calcutta at Naples, It was alleged that when the goods arrived in Bombay on or about August 28, 1922, a great portion of them were found to be totally damaged and unfit for any use. Notice of the damage was given to the defendants' agents in Bombay, and it was claimed that the damage was due to the fact that the ship was not fit to carry such cargo, and that the defendants failed to take proper and reasonable care of the said goods. The delay in filing the suit originally appears to have been due to the fact that parties were endeavouring to settle their differences, without having recourse to a Court of law.2. On October 3,1923, the defendants entered an appearance in the following form, which was directed to the Prothonotary :-Please enter an appearance which is made under protest on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Shivlal Vs. Shrinivas Balmukund
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom527; (1925)27BOMLR1122; 90Ind.Cas.685
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000 claimed to be due on three hundis drawn by the defendants on one Chhotaram Javer in Bombay payable to Shah which were handed over to the plaintiff. Various objections were raised in the written statement, one of which regarding the non-cancellation of the stamps on two of the hundis was successful. The other objections were disallowed, and the Judge passed a decree against the defendant on the third hundi for Rs. 5,000.2. The same objections have been raised before us. The first objection was that the suit was time-barred The defendants in the plaint were described as 'Shivlal Rampranad a firm doing business as merchants at Ahmedabad,' and thereafter, when it was discovered that Shivlal Ramprasad was a joint Hindu family doing business under that name, and that the provisions of Order XXX (Civil Procedure Code) would not apply when defendants were members of an undivided Hindu family, the title o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »