Mumbai Court August 1925 Judgments
Rajubhai Mohanbhai Vs. Lalbhai Mulchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom545
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the chora or open space to the south of his wall, thus necessitating the closing of any jalis, or windows or stopping the mori mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff failed to prove that the wall to the south of his house was of his exclusive ownership. The first Court has found that it was a joint wall and both parties are entitled to its equal user. The trial Court dismissed the suit The appellate Court considered that the plaintiff had proved that all his windows and openings, except a jali in the wall on the ground floor, were of over twenty years' standing, and therefore, the appellant was entitled to a legal easement entitling him to an injunction against the respondents from obstructing or interfering with the light and air to these openings and the discharge from the mori.2. There can be no question of easement as regards light and air in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.H. Sanjana and Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.517
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act XI of 1922 and referred to the High Court with the opinion thereon of the Commissioner, at the instance of the assessees, the liquidators of Messrs. M. H. Sanjana & Company, Limited (in voluntary liquidation), hereinafter called the Company. The Company was started in 1919 to carry on the business of merchants, commission agents, contractors, suppliers of stores, shipchandlers, etc., and did so until the end of the year 1922, when it Avas resolved to take it into voluntary liquidation.2. On February 21, 1923, the liquidators entered into an agreement with Ahmedbhoy Currimbhoy and Albert Raymond on behalf of a new Company to sell to the new Company when incorporated the business including all the stock-in-trade, furniture, fittings, machinery, and plant, motor cars, buildings and lands, the lease of the office-premises at Elphinstone Circle, the goodwill of the busine...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Narayan Patkar Vs. Jivangiri Chamelgiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom131; (1925)27BOMLR1465
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain immoveable properties by the defendants on their passing a sale deed to him, and for possession.2. The document on which the plaintiff sued is Exhibit No. 30 and is dated March 17, 1897. It is addressed to four persona, Govindgiri, Pitambargiri, Chumelgiri and Harigiri, the four chelas of Guru Daulatgiri. It runs as follows :-On March 2, 1807, we have jointly purchased from you the property. After having got registered an arbitration award amongst ourselves about that property and after you have paid off all your personal debts due to us, every one of us will, to the extent of his own rights separately pass to every one of you a separate agreement to sell one-fourth portion of the property purchased from you, the period for the said agreement being one of twenty -one years. When every one of you pays, after '21 years, his one-fourth share of the amount according to the agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Mokamdas Marwadi Vs. E. Christopher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom65; (1925)27BOMLR1462
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem their ornaments by paying the loan amount and interest thereon at eighteen per cent per annum. They admitted that they borrowed the amount of Rs. 2,000 for their business from the defendant and passed to him a promissory note dated September 17, 1922, for that amount on the pledge of ornaments and Cash Certificates of the Post Office, agreeing to pay interest at 6 per cent per mensem, but they alleged that they were orally told by the defendant that they would be charged interest at 1 per cent per mensem on the promissory note amount when it was returned. The defendant denied ever having promissed to charge interest at 1J per cent per mensem.2. The chief contention of the plaintiffs was that the Court could give relief against the transaction as being harsh and oppressive under Sections 16, 19A and 74 of the Indian Contract Act and the Usurious Loans Act X of 1918. It is quite clear that the provisions of the Indian Contract Act...
Tag this Judgment!Chuni Lal Mokamdas Marwadi Vs. E. Christopher and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.368
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem their ornaments by paying the loan amount and interest thereon at eighteen per cent. per annum. They admitted that they borrowed the amount of Rs. 2,000 for their business from the defendant and passed to him a promissory note dated September 17, 1922, for that amount on the pledge of ornaments and Cash Certificates, of the Post Office, agreeing to pay interest at 6 per cent. per mensem, but they alleged that they were orally told by the defendant that they would be charged interest at 2 per cent. per mensem on the promissory note amount when it was returned. The defendant denied ever having promised to charge interest at 1 per cent. per mensem.2. The chief contention of the plaintiffs was that the Court could give relief against the transaction as being harsh and oppressive under Sections 16, 19-A and 74 of the Indian Contract Act and the Usurious Loans Act X of 1918. It is quite clear that the provisions of the Indian Contract Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vallabhram Ganpatram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1391; 94Ind.Cas.881
Coyajee, J.1. [ His lordship after setting out the facts proceeded. ] On these facts, the charge Ex. 1 was framed. The Sessions Judge agreeing with two out of the three assessors held that accused No. 1 had removed the tumar from Jeyshankar's house, with the intention of helping accused Nos. 2 find 3 to utilise it for their own benefit by removing certain papers and altering some others, He, therefore, convicted accused No. 1 of an offence under a, 381, Indian Penal Code. He convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 881 read with Section 109; and also under SB. 466 and 193 read with Section 84 in respect of the two multilated documents Exs. 8 and 14, Punishments were awarded as stated in the judgment.2. On July 24, 1920, accused Vallabhram made a confession (Ex. 83) before the First Class Magistrate at Bulsar. He retracted it in the Court of the committing Magistrate and maintained that attitude in the Sessions Court. Before us, however, his counsel has relied on the facts set out i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Piru Rama Havaldar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom64; (1925)27BOMLR1371
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the petitioners have been convicted of offences under as. 14S and 326, Indian Penal Code, by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Satara. Appeals to the Sessions Judge were dismissed.2. It is contended that we should go into the facts contrary to the usual practice of this Court in revision, but no adequate grounds appear for our following this exceptional course. The more fact that there was some delay in the prosecution of the accused and that the investigating police apparently formed a conclusion contrary to the truth of the prosecution case are not sufficient to lead us to suppose that there has been any miscarriage of justice Both the Assistant Sessions Judge and Sessions Judge have written careful judgments, considering all the evidence including these opinions of the Police officers, and the Sessions Judge acquitted one of the four accused who had been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge. In my opinion there is certainly no reason why we should appre...
Tag this Judgment!Leoh Moses Vs. Solomon Judah Meyer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom139; (1925)27BOMLR1460; 92Ind.Cas.367
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A petition was filed in this Court by Leoh Moses bin Moses Enoch Levi and Hanua Menahem Baiter, daughter and widow of one Moses bin Moses, stating that the sons of Dawood Moses, brother of the deceased Moses bin Moses had applied to the Court of the Resident at Aden for the grant of the letters of administration with the will annexed of the estate of Moses Enoch Levi, the father of the said Moses bin Moses. The Court of the Assistant Resident issued citations, and the petitioners filed a caveat against the grant of letters. The Assistant Resident finding the matter contentious directed under Section 75 of the Probate and Administration Act that the petition and the documents should be returned to the applicants for submission to the Resident. The Court of the Resident then issued notices fixing April 17, for the hearing of the said application, Thereafter because the petitioner did not file an affidavit in support of their caveat within eight days prescribed...
Tag this Judgment!Parashuram D. Shamdasani Vs. the Tata Industrial Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom18; (1925)27BOMLR1195
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These appeals arise from the taxation of the bills of costs of the first and sixth defendants which were ordered to be paid by the plaintiffs under the decree in Suit No. 3643 of 1923 and can be dealt with in one judgment.2. The plaint was declared on August 29, 1923. The first defendant and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 filed their respective written statements on September 21. The sixth defendants filed their written statement on September 20, The first and sixth defendants filed their affidavit of documents on September 22, 1923. Thereafter, on October 1, the plaintiffs took out a summons returnable on October 3, for a supplemental affidavit.3. The suit had already been fixed for hearing for October 3, so the Chamber Judge directed that the summons should be dealt with by Pratt J. on whose board the suit had been placed for hearing. The summons was not adjourned for hearing in Court. When the suit was called on Pratt J. first disposed of the plaintiffs' applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Subrao Sesharao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1351
Fawcett, J.1. In this cane the accused Was convicted under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, in respect of two separate acts of theft, and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, for each of the two offences. The Magistrate further directed that the two sentences should run concurrently.2. The question is raised by the Superintendent of the Jail, in which the accused was confined, whether the sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine could run concurrently. The Jail Superintendent on the authority of Section 64, Indian Penal Code, and a Government Resolution, No. 5851, dated October 26, 1888, Judicial Deparement, was of opinion that they could not run concurrently. The District Magistrate has referred the question to us. The only judicial authority on the point that has been brought to our notice is the case of Imperator v. Akidullah (1911) 5 SL.R. 263 where...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »