Mumbai Court September 1925 Judgments
Bhagu Govinda Patel Vs. Narayan Tukaram Survashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR428; 94Ind.Cas.658
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property alleging that it belonged to one Dadn Govinda who took Rs. 500 from the plaintiff and sold it to him on June 12, 1920. Plaintiff alleged that he got possession according to the terms of the deed but defendant thereafter wrongfully deprived him of possession. With regard to possession both Courts have found that the plaintiff could not get possession, although he got a sale-deed in his favour. Being out of possession then he must rely upon the title which he sets up under his sale-deed.2. Now Dadu Govinda did not execute the sale-deed himself. At that time he had been found guilty of the offence of murder and had been sentenced to death, In order to raise money to enable him to appeal against the sentence of death to the High Court, he, while in Satara jail, gave a power of attorney to his mother to sell his property. That power of attorney was cancelled and he gave a fresh power of attorney to o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kutta Bella Ravat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom80; (1925)27BOMLR1415
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the accused undertook to serve the complainant as an elephant driver and received an advance of Rs. 10, on condition of working as agreed upon. He has been accordingly ordered, with his consent, to serve as an elephant driver and to repay the advance within a period of one year under Section 2 of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act.2. Objection has been taken on the return as to this case that an elephant driver is not a workman or labourer as contemplated by Section 1 of the Act, and reference has been made to Muni Chundra v Hariram Ahom (1881) S.C.L.R. 254 where the Calcutta High Court took the view that a mahout or elephant driver does not come within the provisions of Act XIII of 1859. In that case the Deputy Commissioner, who made the reference, was of opinion that the accused, an elephant driver, was a domestic servant, Although the judgment gives no reasons, we presume the Court agreed with this view. With due deference, it seems to us absurd that an ...
Tag this Judgment!Virappa Govindappa Konraddi Vs. Basappa Virbhadrappa Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1511
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The defendants applied for the execution of the consent decree in suit No. 380 of 1911), dated November 22, 1920, whereby it was ordered that the plaintiffs should pay to defendants Nos. 1-5 Rs, 13,000, by instalments. If the plaintiff's could not pay the amount, the defendants were entitled to recover the amount by sale of the property in suit which was charged with payment of the decree. The property was sold and the sale proceeds were not sufficient to satisfy the decree. Thereupon the defendants applied for the attachment of certain other property belonging to the plaintiffs. On October 13,1923, an order was made and it was transferred to the Collector for further execution under Section 68, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs might have appealed against that order. But instead of doing that, they made a miscellaneous application to the Judge praying that the defendants' darkhast should be dismissed. We do not know how it was competent to the Judge to e...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulabchand Dosaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1416; 94Ind.Cas.602
Fawcett, J.1. In the appeal No. 134, the first point taken is that the jury wrongly convicted the accused of a minor offence under a, 411, which was one triable by the Judge with the aid of assessors, whereas the charge against him under M. 412 was triable by a jury. I do not think it necessary to discuss this question at any length. The case is one to which the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 269 do not apply, inasmuch as no charge was framed against the accused under Section 411. It is certainly the case that the trial was actually one by a jury; and no application was made (as it might have been, when the question of the possibility of the accused being convicted under Section 411 was discussed in the address of the Assistant Public Prosecutor) to have a separate charge framed under Section 411, so that the provisions of that sub-section might apply. There is authority for saying the accused cannot, therefore, now complain of verdict having been given by the jury and accept...
Tag this Judgment!G.i.P. Railway Company Vs. Chandulal Sheopratap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1500
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In Suit No 966 of 1923 the defendants raised an issue whether the plaintiff delivered a notice of his claim as required by as. 77 and HO of the Indian Railways Act.2. On June 15, 1922, the plaintiff wrote to the Deputy Traffic Manager that the bales had not been received and requesting him to settle the claim.3. On June 23, the letter was acknowledged, and it was intimated that the claim would receive attention.4. On October 23, the plaintiff was informed that his claim could not be accepted as the goods were burnt accidentally by fire. This information would not have reached the plaintiff within six months from the date the goods were consigned.5. On November 25, the plaintiff wrote to the Agent of the defendant company giving notice of his claim. The learned Judge held that the first notice given to the Deputy Traffic Manager was a notice to the railway administration on the ground that there was a Department in the Traffic Manager's office which dealt wit...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Goverdhanlalji Maharaj Vs. Shri Chandraprabhavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1496
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit with a view to get the terms of the consent decree, passed on June 13, 1912, whereby inter alia her maintenance was fixed at Rs. 2000 per every two months, varied, on the ground that circumstances had arisen which justified her asking for an increase. The defendant in his written statement submitted that the suit was not maintainable, that the sum payable to the plaintiff had been fixed by a consent decree and could not be altered without the consent of the defendant.2. A preliminary issue was raised in a somewhat unintelligible form, viz., whether the suit was not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the written statement. After hearing arguments on that issue, the Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable, and as the parties were not ready to go on with the hearing, the further hearing of the suit had to be adjourned.3. But it appears that on that decision an order was drawn up as follows:-' The suit being th...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam HusseIn Bundeally Hurji Vs. Piarally Abdulla Dossal and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1074; 97Ind.Cas.797
Mirza, J.1. The original plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants claiming a sum of Rs. 11,140, interest, and costs. The original plaintiff's were adjudicated insolvents, and the second plaintiff, the Official Assignee of Madras, was brought on the record as the second plaintiff being their assignee in insolvency.2. By an order made by Taraporewala J., dated March 12, 1926, the Official Assignee of Madras was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,600 as security for the defendants' costs incurred up to that date, The learned Judge further ordered that the plaintiffs (meaning the defendants) be at liberty to apply for further security as further coats are incurred.3. The defendants, under the liberty so reserved to them, have, by their Chamber Summons, dated Septemer 1, 1925, called upon the Official Assignee of Madras to deposit a further sum of Rs. 4,000, or such other sum as to this Court may seem proper, as security for the defendants' costs incurred subsequent to the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kasamkhan Ahmedkhan Mujawar Vs. Kaji Isub Kaji Shabudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom161
Fawcett, J.1. This is a suit relating to a dargah (shrine) of a Pir in the village of Pawas. The plaintiff claims to be the descendant of the Pir and sues for a declaration o his rights as a mujawar in respect of the dargah, and for an injunction against obstruction to his rights. In the plaint he claims full proprietary rights over this dargah, and the properties appertaining to it. He also claims the sole right of conducting, the Urus or the annual festival and other religious ceremonies therein. The defendants on the other hand claim as Kazis of Pawas the right of performing these ceremonies and to receive the navas or offerings made at it. The main dispute was as to disposal of those offerings. The trial Court granted the plaintiff a declaration that he was the present rightful holder of the office of the mujawar, but rejected his claim to the proprietorship over the dargah and moveables therein. This decree was confirmed by the District Judge on appeal, except that a declaration t...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam HusseIn Bundeally Hurji and ors. Vs. Piarally Abdulla Dossal and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom533
Mirza, J.1. The original plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants claiming a sum of Rs. 11,140, interest, and costs. The original plaintiffs were adjudicated insolvent, and the second plaintiff, the Official Assignee of Madras, was brought on the record as the second plaintiff being their assignee in insolvency.2. By order made by Taraporewala, J., dated 12th March 1925, the Official Assignee of Madras was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,500 as security for the defendants' costs incurred up to that date. The learned Judge further ordered that the plaintiffs (meaning the defendants) be at liberty to apply for further security as further costs are incurred.3. The defendants, under the liberty so reserved to them, have, by their Chamber Summons, dated 1st September 1925, called upon the Official. Assignee of Madras to deposit a farther sum of Rs. 4,000, or such other sum as to this Court may seem proper, as security for the defendants' costs incurred subsequent to the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mabel Panton Vs. the Administrator General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR11
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the widow of one Arthur Panton who died at Poona on or about the November 2, 1922, leaving a will dated December 24, 1918, and a codicil thereto dated October 29, 1922. The first defendant is the Administrator General to whom letters of administration with the will and codicil annexed were granted on June 28, 1923. The second defendant is the son and third defendant is the daughter of the deceased. The plaintiff claimed that certain war bonds of the face value of Rs. 1,00,000 standing at the date of the death of Mr. Panton in the names of himself and his wife or either of them belonged to her and not to the estate.2. The admitted facts leading up to the purchase of the suit war bonds are as follows.3. On August 23, 1922, Mr. Panton, who was then living at Poona, wrote to Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons, London asking them to sell 8105-4-3 five per cent. war stock 1929-47 belonging to him and to remit the proceeds to Bombay. The war...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »