Mumbai Court February 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bombay Improvement Trust Vs. Mervanji Manekji Mistry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR701
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Tribunal of Appeal constituted under the City of Bombay Improvement Trust Act. A Reference lay before them with regard to Case No. 58 in Scheme 60 comprising 22,896 sq. yards, situated on the Bhoivada Road, The date of Notification was September 11, 1919, and the date of declaration was December 4, 1919. The tenure was Pension and Tax, and the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 1,83,968 as compensation for all interests at Rs. 8 a square yard. The land had a frontage on the Bhoivada Road of 130 feet and a depth of 460 feet, while there was a passage on the north and another passage on the south. At the time of the acquisition, it was practically vacant. The building materials thereon were valued at Rs. 800. The claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer had asked for compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 a square yard. Before the Tribunal he asked for compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 a square yard plus Rs. 80...
Mahomed Jafer Vs. Sheikh Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR538; 95Ind.Cas.266
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant filed this appeal with all the documents prescribed by Order XLI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, but without a Vakilpatra, He, therefore, had to apply for leave after the Vakilpatra had been filed, calling on the opponents to show cause why delay should not be excused. Order III, Rule 1, says :-' Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf.' An appeal may be presented by a pleader duly appointed to act on the appellant's behalf by virtue of the Vakilpatra having been signed, so that it would appear that the non filing of the Vakilpatra in Court would not prevent the appeal from being an appeal properly preferred. In any event I do not think there is any neces...
Mahomed Khaleel Shirazi Vs. Les Tanneries Lyonnaises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1391
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated March 14, 1922, of the High Court at Madras, which was made in its appellate civil jurisdiction and varied as decree, dated October 20, 1920, of a Judge of the same Court, which was made in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.2. The appeal arises in a suit which was instituted with the leave of the High Court on Februarys, 1919, in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court by the plaintiffs, who live in the city of Madras, to obtain a decree against Les Tanneries Lyonnaises and their agent Monsieur J. Marret for money alleged to be due to the plaintiffs under a contract for the sale and delivery of goat skins under a contract of May 25, 1917, and under a contract of January 26, 1918, for the sale and delivery of sheep skins. There was another defendant to the suit named, C, Sowrimuthoerya Oodayar, against whom no relief was claimed. The suit was tried and the decree of the t...
Emperor Vs. Azimkhan Zainkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR84; 110Ind.Cas.107
Shah, J.1. In this case I have admitted the statement of the accused made before the Coroner.2. An objection was raised as to its admissibility and I was referred to two recent cases: Emperor v. Kazi Dawood (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 79 and Emperor v. Ramnath Mahabir (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 1113. Having regard to the manner in which this particular statement has been recorded by the Coroner, I feel no doubt that it is admissible in evidence. In view of the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 20 of the Coroners' Act (IV of 1871 as subsequently amended) the statement appears to me to be admissible. There is no question here of any possible application of the proviso in Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement is in terms voluntary, and in fact the accused (then the suspected person) wanted to make the statement which the Coroner simply recorded. I see no reason why a statement of this nature should be inadmissible in evidence, nor is there any provision of law which renders it ...
Emperor Vs. Kaikobad Sorabji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR486; 95Ind.Cas.58
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused on a charge under Section 108 of the Indian Railways Act of having without reasonable and sufficient cause pulled the communication cord in a particular train. The question turns on whether there was sufficient evidence before the Magistrate to justify him in finding that there was reasonable and sufficient cause. It is admitted that the accused pulled the emergency chain and that he did so, because he had left his coat behind on the platform. He further alleges that the coat contained valuables. For the purposes of this case we may assume that that was so.2. Primarily, Section 108 is intended for the protection of the personal safety of passengers who are travelling by train. But this communication cord might result in endangering the safety of passengers either in the train in question or in some other train, if it became at all a habit for passengers to pull the emergency chain and thus bring a particu...
Bhikhabhai Oghaddas Shah Vs. Purshottam Girdhardas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR695
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Chhotalal Girdhar had an only son named Motilal. Both father and son were possessed of joint ancestral properties, moveable and immoveable. On September 4, 1913, Chhotalal made a will, Exhibit 100, and died on March 7, 1915. Motilal died unmarried on October 17, 1918, leaving at the time of his death his mother, Ruxmani, and his sister, Sanku. Sanku was married to the plaintiff in this suit, and died on October 8, 1920. Before that, on July 30, 1919, Ruxmani passed a gift deed to the plaintiff, By his will Chhotalal, after setting out particulars of his property, stated that he was the owner thereof as long as he was living and free from illness, so that he might enjoy the property as he pleased. He appointed, in case of his death, his wife Ruxmani to be the owner and heir to the property that should remain after his death. She was to take all the property in her possession and perform his afterdeath ceremonies, and, in case Sanku was not married, Ruxman...
Mahomedalli Allabux Vs. Ismailji Abdulali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR471; 95Ind.Cas.49
Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.1. Ismailji Abdulali, the father of three children under the age of eighteen, viz. Amina, Hussena and Mariam, applied to this Court, under the provisions of Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for an order for the production of the children against Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Mullaji Saheb. A rule nisi was issued for the production of the minors, and when the matter first came on for hearing, Mariam, the youngest of the three sisters, was actually before the Court, and there being no question between the parties with regard to the proper custody of Mariam, the Judge ordered Mariam to be entrusted to the custody of her father. 2. On the affidavits it appeared that the other two children were outside the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, so the Judge allowed the petition to be amended by making it clear that it was a petition not only under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, but also for the exercise of the common law power of this C...
The Bank of Baroda Vs. H.B. Shivdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR689
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant, as Official Liquidator of the Whittle Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited, filed this application, under Section 283 of the Indian Companies-Act, in the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, asking for a declaration that the floating, charge given to the Bank of Baroda by the Company, on June 13, 1924, was invalid as having been granted within three months of the commencement of the winding up.2. The instrument creating the charge in dispute, Exhibit 77/5, was executed on June 13, 1924, by two Directors in favour of the Bank.3. A petition for the compulsory winding up of the Company was presented on August 7, 1924, Therefore, it is not denied that the charge was given within three months of the commencement of the winding up, and, as the District Judge has pointed out, any attempt to prove that the Company was solvent at the time the charge was created was bound to fail.4. So the only question in issue was whether Exhibit 77/5 creat...
Bank of Baroda Vs. H.B. Shivdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom427
Macleod, C.J.1. The applicant, as Official Liquidator of the Whittle Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited, filed this application under Section 233 of the Indian Companies Act in the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, asking for a declaration that the floating charge given to the Bank of Baroda by the Company, on June 13, 1924, was invalid as having been granted within three months of the commencement of the winding up. The instrument creating the charge in dispute Exhibit 77/5, was executed on June 13, 1924, by two Directors in favour of the Bank. A petition for the compulsory winding up of the Company was presented on August 7, 1924. Therefore, it is not denied that the charge was given within three months of the commencement of the winding up, and, as the District Judge has pointed out, any attempt to prove that the Company was solvent at the time the charge was created was bound to fail.2. So the only question in issue was whether Exhibit 77/5 created a floating charge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›