Mumbai Court August 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. B.N. Gamadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1405
Fawcett, J.1. These two applications for revision, Nos. 83 and 81 of 1925, arise out of a fire which took place in the Gamadia Press Factory at Raver at 11 A. M. on January 81, 1924. The fire unfortunately resulted in the death of twelve women, and burns and other injuries to ten other women. The chief Inspector of Factories, after an enquiry, sanctioned the prosecution of the three applicants in Application No. 84 as being the occupiers of the factory, and of the applicant Mehenti in No. 83 as being the manager of the same factory, on a charge under Section 41, Clause (a) of the Indian Factories Act, 1911, read with Section 20 of the same Act. Under these sections the occupier and manager are jointly and severally liable to fine, if convicted, for employing or allowing to work any person contrary to any of the provisions of the Act; and the allegation is that women were employed, or allowed to work, in contravention of Section 20, which prohibits the employment of women and children i...
Tag this Judgment!Shidraj Bhojraj Desai Vs. Renaki Konda Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1490
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. In this case a decree was passed in suit No. 4 of 1917 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Athni against, amongst other persons, one Thalya Mahar. He died soon after the decree was passed on September 27, 1917, and his widow was placed on the record. On June 1, 1918, a darkhast was filed against her. Her husband was not described in the proceeding which was exparte against him as an agriculturist and the widow died before the darkhast came on for decision. The present applicant is the daughter of Thalya and she applied to be declared as an agriculturist BO that she could obtain the privileges of that status in the execution proceedings. The trial Court ordered the sale of the property and attachment to proceed.2. In appeal the acting District Judge set aside that order and directed the Subordinate Judge to find on the issue as to whether the applicant was or was not an agriculturist, and if it was found that she was an agriculturist to gra...
Tag this Judgment!Rupchand Ganesh Shet Vs. Bhogilal Ratanchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR307; 94Ind.Cas.72
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case an issue was framed: 'Are defendants or any of them agriculturists ' After considering the evidence which was led before him on that question at great length, the Judge held that defendants were not agriculturists. He then said: 'I must now proceed and frame the remaining issues, and as the case is a complicated one and the pleaders are not ready I put the case down for framing issues on March 1, 1924.2. It appears, however, that the finding on the issue, ' Whether the defendants or any of them were agriculturists', was recorded in the form of a decree. Against that an appeal was admitted by this Court. On the face of it the case was covered by the decision of this Court in Dattatraya v. Radhabai (1920) 23 Bom. L.R. 92 The learned Judges, who admitted the appeal, appear to have considered it arguable that the decision in Vamanacharya v. Govind : AIR1924Bom33 was opposed to the decision in Dattatraya v. Radhabai.3. We must, therefore, proceed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Purshottam Gor Vs. the Dakor Temple Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR309; 94Ind.Cas.47
Fawcett, J.1. The facts out of which, this application arises have been fully stated in this Court's judgment of April 11, 1919, in Appeal No. 223 of 1915, and need not be re-stated. That judgment, and the consequential one of September 22, 1919, have been set aside under the judgment of their lordships in Privy Council Appeal No. 95 of 1923. In that judgment it is said:-' The High Court at Bombay had power conferred upon it by Clause 20 of the scheme confirmed by His Majesty's Order in Council upon an application made to it with that object to alter, modify or add to the rules sanctioned by the District Judge, but it had no other power, and that power it did not exercise; it may, however, still be exercised upon application properly made to it.' Accordingly the present application has been made by twelve Gors 'for themselves and on behalf of the other Tarwadi Mewada Gors, residing at Dakore.' Their main contention is that the rules framed by the Temple Committee and sanctioned by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Purshottam Gor and ors. Vs. Dakor Temple Committee and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom179
Fawcett, J.1. The facts out of which this application arises have been fully stated in this Court's judgment of April 11, 1919, in Appeal No. 223 of 1915, and need not be re-stated. That judgment, and the consequential one of September 22, 1919, have been set aside under the judgment of their Lordships in Privy Council in Appeal No. 95 of 1923. In that judgment it is said : 'The High Court at Bombay had power conferred upon it by Clause 20 of the scheme confirmed by His Majesty's Order in Council upon an application made to it with that object to alter, modify or add to the rules sanctioned by the District Judge, but it had no other power, and that power it did not exercise; it may, however, still be exercised upon application properly made to it.' Accordingly the present application has been made by twelve Gors 'for themselves and on behalf of the other Tarwadi Mewada Gors, residing at Dakore.' Their main contention is that the rules framed by the Temple Committee and sanctioned by th...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshedji Ardeshir Wadia Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR25
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. [F. A. No. 79 of 1922]. This suit was filed by the first plaintiff, Jehangir Ardeshir Wadia, styling himself the registered holder Inamdar and Khot of the villages of Juhu and Ville Parle in the Salsette Taluka of the Thana District, and by plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 as the trustees of a trust settlement effected by the first holder on March 16, 1853, against the Secretary of State for India. The plaint recites that the villages were granted by a deed, dated February 9, 1848, to the late Nowroji Jamsedji Wadia, Master Builder, by the Hon'ble Court of Directors of the East India Company. In 1821 the said Nowroji had been granted lands yielding an annual revenue of Rs. 4,000 from the estate held by one Hormusji Bomanji in Kurla in Salsette. For reasons which it is not necessary to set out in detail, the said Nowroji was not put in possession of any lands but continued to receive from the Company an annual payment of Rs. 4,000 and eventually at the request of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshedji Ardeshir Wadia and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom209
Macleod, C.J.1. This suit was filed by the first plaintiff, Jehangir Ardeshir Wadia, styling himself the registered holder Inamdar and Khot of the villages of Juhu and Ville Parle in the Salsette Taluka of the Thana District, and by Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 as the trustees of a trust settlement effected by the first holder on March 16, 1853, against the Secretary of State for India. The plaint recites that the villages were granted by a deed, dated February 9, 1848, to the late Nowroji Jamsedji Wadia, Master Builder, by the Hon'ble Court of Directors of the East India Company. In 1821 the said Nowroji had been granted lands yielding an annual revenue of Rs. 4,000 from the estate held by one Hormusji Bomanji in Kurla in Salsette. For reasons which it is not necessary to set out in detail, the said Nowroji was not put in possession of any lands but continued to receive from the Company an annual payment of Rs. 4,000 and eventually, at the request of the said Nowroji the suit villages were ...
Tag this Judgment!The India Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. Vs. the Climax Industrial ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom1; (1925)27BOMLR1281
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The contest in this appeal lies between the 2nd defendants (appellants) and the plaintiff's (respondents), and the facts material to this purpose may be shortly stated :-2. In the month of December 1910, the plaintiffs, a syndicate, sold to the first defendants (the Sipra Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.) the machinery and buildings of the Adam-jeo Peerbhoy Mills at Bombay for Rs. 2,00,000. By an agreement dated October 14, 1920, the first defendant:- agreed to sell a moiety of the said machinery and buildings to the second defendants (the Indian Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.) for the sum of UH. 12,50,000 (Ex. A). On July 10, 1921, the second defendants mortgaged the whole of their Miffs situated at Ahmedabad and also the moiety of the machinery etc., purchased from the first defendants, to the first defendants to secure payment of Us 6,25,000, being part of the purchase-money of the said machinery and materials. The due date for payment of this mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Balshet Mahadshet Yekawde Vs. Hari Baburao Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom119; (1925)27BOMLR1487
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property alleging that the same belonged to him, having been rented by the defendant under a rent note dated May 5, 1913. The defendant raised various defences to which I am not going to refer in detail, It is sufficient to say in passing that they did defendant little credit, and only raised a prejudice against him in the Courts, In the trial Court be attempted to show that the lavanchitti, Exhibit 12, was obtained by misrepresentation, but failed to prove that, So it was held that-he was bound by the lavanchitti and that he forfeited hie occupancy rights by having failed to pay rent for five years.2. It cannot be disputed that the defendant's name was in the bot khat as an occupancy tenant, paying rent according to the appraisement. That would give the plaintiff Khot about eight maunds of paddy annually. According to the lease the tenant had to give six maunds and was not liable to enhancement. But the J...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivandas Jamnadas Vs. the Nagar Central Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR226
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff carries on business as a sub agent of the firm of Tarachand Ghanshamdas and sells kerosene oil of the Burma Oil Company in the district of Ahmednagar. The defendants are bankers doing business at Ahmednagar. It appears that the plaintiff had dealings for the last twenty years with the firm of Tarachand Ghanshamdas and in the course of such business the plaintiff used to send from time to time either hundis or cheques by ordinary post to Tarachand Ghanshamdas. On October 24, 1923, the plaintiff took from the defendants a cheque for Rs. 3000 payable to themselves or order, on the Bombay Provincial Co-operative Bank, and the cheque was not crossed at the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff indorsed the cheque in favour of Tarachand Ghanshamdas Or order, and it was sent, according to the evidence of the plaintiff, by ordinary post with a letter dated October 24, 1923, along with a hundi for Rs. 600 to Tarachand Ghanshamdas. The letter with the enclosures, namely, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »