Mumbai Court June 1926 Judgments
In Re: Llewelyn Evans
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1043; 97Ind.Cas.801
Fawcett, J.1. The Commissioner of Police through the Government Pleader now informs us that he agrees to allow any member of the petitioners' firm, or any representative appointed by them, reasonable access to the accused Llewelyn Evans, from time to time, so long as the said Llewelyn Evans remains remanded in Police custody, and in accordance with the corresponding Rule 995 of the Jail Manual, Part I, as to an interview between an unconvicted prisoner and his legal adviser, that is to say, it should take place within sight, but out of hearing, of a Police Officer. This satisfies Mr. Kemp for the petitioners.2. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for us to deliver judgments such as would have been necessary, if the refusal of the Commissioner of Police had been persisted in, But, the question being one of general importance, I may say that, we have come to the conclusion that the Police cannot legitimately claim that in no circumstances should an unconvicted prisoner, who has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Manikshet Vs. Ajamkha Sardarkha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1431
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, by the learned District Judge of East Khandesh, The point in question is, whether, under the document Exhibit 3 in the case, the minors, who are there mentioned, are excluded by limitation from bringing a suit on the document, or whether they had three years from attaining their majority in which to bring a suit, The learned Judge has felt a difficulty in consequence of a decision of this High Court by Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Shah in Vishnu v. Keshav : AIR1924Bom468 and has consequently referred this point to us, more especially as he states that other cases in the District are pending on the right decision of this particular point. Vishnu v. Keshav purported to follow the case of Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) Mad. 205 The latter was a case where a promissory note had been taken by the mother and guardian of an infant in her own name. As I read the r...
Tag this Judgment!Babanna Sangappa Vs. Parava Ningbasappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1446
Fawcett, J.1. A preliminary point has been taken in this appeal that the notice issued to the respondents was returned unserved by the Subordinate Judge of Bagalkot under an endorsement dated March 9, 1925, and that an application for the issue of a fresh notice to the respondents was not made until June 29, 1925. It is contended that this application was made after the period of three months prescribed by Order IX, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, and that under the terms of that rule the Court must dismiss the appeal, in spite of the fact that Coyajee J., on July 16, passed an order, excusing the delay and ordered the issue of fresh notice by substituted service upon the respondents.2. In my opinion, however, Order IX, Rule 5, does not apply to appeals. In terms it only applies to suits, and Order IX contains no provision such as appears in Order XXII, Rule 1, that 'plaintiff' shall include an appellant, etc.3. In fact it seems to me clear that the legislature did not intend Order IX to...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Manikshet and ors. Vs. Ajamkha Sardarkha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom61
Marten, C.J.1. This is a reference-under Order 46, Rule 1 of the Civil P.C. by the learned District Judge of East Khandesh. The point in question is, whether, under the document Exhibit 3 in the' case, the minors, who are there mentioned, are excluded by limitation from bringing a suit on the document, or whether they had three years from attaining their majority in which to bring a suit. The learned Judge has felt a difficulty in consequence of a decision of this High Court by Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Shah in Vishnu v. Keshan A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 468 and has consequently referred this point to us, more especially as he states that other cases in the district are pending on the right decision of this particular point.. Vishnu v. Keshav A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 468 purported to follow the case of Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar [1904] 28 Mad. 205. The latter was a case where a promissory note had been taken by the mother and guardian of an infant in her own name. As I read the repo...
Tag this Judgment!Babanna Sangappa and ors. Vs. Parava Ningbasappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom68
Fawcett, J.1. A preliminary point has been taken in this appeal that the notice issued to the respondents was returned unserved by the Subordinate Judge of Bagalkot under an endorsement dated March 9, 1925, and that an application for the issue of a fresh notice to the respondents was not made until June 29, 1925. It is contended that this application was made after the period of three months prescribed by O. 9, Rule 5, Civil P.C.,and that under the terms of that rule the Court must dismiss the appeal, in spite of the fact that Coyajee, J., on July 16, passed an order, excusing the delay and ordered the issue of fresh notice by substituted service upon the, respondents.2. In my opinion, however, O. 9, Rule 5, does not apply to appeals. In terms it only applies to suits, and O. 9 contains no provision such as appears in Order 22, Rule 1, that 'plaintiff' shall include an appellant, etc.3. In fact it seems to me clear that the Legislature did not intend O. 9 to apply to appeals, for Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Jeshraj Marwadi Vs. Jamsetji Rustum Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1382
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The main trouble in this case has been caused by irregularities in the procedure adopted in the Small Causes Court, Poona. The point is whether the plaintiff can be held liable as surety under a bond which he entered into in the Small Causes Court to pay a certain claim up to Rs. 1,000, if the principal debtor, one Khodadad, did not pay, there having been an ex parte decree passed against Khodadad in favour of the Marwadi, who is the defendant-appellant in the present case. That ex parte decree was set aside on the terms inter alia that the surety should give security in the way I have mentioned.2. In 1919 the defendant Khodadad died. He left a widow, two minor sons and a daughter, who in fact were all in Persia. Khodadad was a Parsi. The Marwadi allowed over six months to expire and the suit to be abated before he made an application to set aside the abatement, and to bring the heirs on the record. But the persons, whom he asked to be brought on the record...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Sayaji Gaokar Vs. Vithal Narayan Mirashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1367
Amberson Marten, kt., C.J.1. In this second appeal we think that the learned District Judge was quite right in holding that the decree passed in the original partition suit was a nullity, be far as regards defendant No. 3, Narayan Rukhmaji Mirasi, and his representatives, on the ground that before the hearing of the suit was concluded Narayan died, and his legal representatives were never pub on the record. It is clear, when the record is looked at, that the trial Judge's view that the hearing had in fact been concluded prior to the death of Narayan cannot be supported,2. It is, however, argued on behalf of the plaintiff that this objection cannot be taken in darkhast proceedings, but must be taken in a separate suit, and for that purpose a decision of Sir Basil Scott and Mr.. Justice Batchelor in Hari Govind v. Nar-singrao Konherrao I.L.R. (1013) 38 Bom. 194 is relied on. But that was a case of jurisdiction, viz., whether, having regard to the Court of Wards Act, the trial Court had p...
Tag this Judgment!The Administrator General of Bombay Vs. Haji Sultanalli Sushtary and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom255; (1927)29BOMLR396
Mirza, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken ont by the defendant firm against the plaintiff' for an order that satisfaction may be entered up in full on the decree herein and on the decree in Suit No. 3872 of 1924 and that the plaintiff may be ordered to pay the costs of the summons.2. The summons is taken out under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 18, of the Code of Civil Procedure. By consent of parties the mutual application for execution contemplated by Order XXI, Rule 18, is dispensed with. The facts which have given rise to the summons are as follows :-3. On June 17, 1925, a decree was passed in Suit No. 3872 of 1924, in favour of three persons, namely, (1) Aga Mahomed Hassan Shushtary, (2) Aga Mahomed Jaffer Shustary, and (3) Aga Mahomed Hussein Shustary, for a sum of Rs. 4,800, costs of the suit and simple interest at six per cent against the plaintiff herein who is the executor of the last will and testament of one Mirza Mahomed Shirazi, deceased.4. On February 2, 1926, a con...
Tag this Judgment!Sursingji Dajiraj Thakorsaheb Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom590
Fawcett, J.1. In this appeal the plaintiff-appellant seeks a reversal of the decree of the Joint Judge, Ahmedabad, dismissing his suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The respondent has, however, filed cross-objection in regard to the finding of the Joint Judge in favour of the plaintiff on the merits. Therefore, the whole case is now before us for decision.2. The first question is the point of limitation. The plaintiff is the Thakor of Utelia and owns certain villages as Talukdar, including the village of Hariala in the Matar Taluka of the Kaira District. In that village there is a group of lands, which has for a long time been known as 'Bhavsingji's Wanta,' The main facts about it are not disputed. These lands have, for a very large number of years, been shown in the village accounts as Wanta rent-free lands. On the other hand, in 1872-73, on a reference about them by the Revenue Authorities, Government held that these lands were improperly shown as alienated lands, no...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Sayaji Gaokar Vs. Vithal Narayan Mirashi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom53
Marten, C.J.1. In this second appeal we think that the learned District Judge was quite right in holding that the decree passed in the original partition suit was a nullity, so far as regards Defendant No. 3 Narayan Rukhmaji Mirasi, and his representatives, on the ground that before the hearing of the suit was concluded Narayan died and his legal representatives were never put on the record. It is clear, when the record is looked at, that the trial Judge's view that the hearing had in fact been concluded prior to the death of Narayan cannot be supported.2. It is, however, argued on behalf of the plaintiff that this objection cannot be taken in darkhast proceedings, but must be taken in a separate suit, and for that purpose a decision of Sir Basil Scott and Mr. Justice Batchelor in Hari Govind v. Narsingrao Konherrao [1914] 38 Bom. 194 is relied on. But that was a case of jurisdiction, viz., whether having regard to the Court of Wards Act, the trial Court had power to pass the particula...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »