Mumbai Court September 1926 Judgments
Parbhulal Dullabhram Vs. Bhagvan Parbhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom412; (1927)29BOMLR473
Percival, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts, proceeded.] The main questions which arise for consideration in this appeal are :I. Whether the sale of December 29, 1909, was bogus and fraudulent or not ?II. If not, what is the effect of the purchase of the suit property on January 14, 1918, in the names of the sons of the insolvent ?2. In regard to the first of these two points the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the enumeration by the learned District Judge of the doubtful circumstances connected with the sale shows it was fraudulent. I am of opinion, however, that there is a definite finding of fact that the sale is not proved to be fraudulent, and that that finding of the District Judge is to be accepted by this Court.3. The result is that so far as the original sale of 1909 is concerned, the present appellant cannot base his case on that sale. It may be added that similar remarks apply to the sale by Bhagvandas to Shivlal.4. We now come to the sale in th...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabai Jehangir Mistry Vs. Dinshaw Edulji Karkaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1334; 95Ind.Cas.556
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by a married woman for slander. The only defence now subsisting is that without proof of special damage the suit is not maintainable. Admittedly, no special damage is shown. Accordingly, the defence raises an important and interesting question of law, and has led to the able arguments of counsel ranging over a wide field.2. At the outset I should make it clear that the lady has already vindicated her honour. She has prosecuted the defendant under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation, and he has been convicted by a criminal Court and fined Rs. 50 or in default to suffer one month's imprisonment. His application to the High Court in revision was rejected, The only question is, whether in addition the plaintiff can recover damages in a civil suit. Her claim is for Rs. 10,000.3. The facts are shortly as follows:-The parties are all Parsis, and occupied different flats in the same building, the plaintiff and her husband and...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Jivanlal Shah Vs. Pira Miyaji Ghanchi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom234; (1927)29BOMLR285; 101Ind.Cas.335
Shah, J.f1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a decree in Suit No. 227 of 1920 against the trustees of the deceased Dwarkadas Parshottam and in execution of that decree he attached certain debts which were alleged to be due to the deceased Dwarkadas. Among those debts, there was a debt of Rs. 490 said to be due by the present defendant to Dwarkadas. The defendant was served with a notice of the attachment of that debt and he filed his statement in the Court on November 18, 1921, contending that the amount actually due by him to Dwarkadas was Rs. 21 and not Rs. 490. After certain adjournments the executing Court made the following order on January 28 :-Public notice to be issued under Order XXI, Rule 66, to sell the attached dues in possession of the third person, belonging to the deceased defendant and an auction warrant to be issued with the Nazir's order.2. The attached dues included this particular debt. The plaintiff purchased this particular debt at the auction sale and filed th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Rehman Pathan Vs. Bharma Budhya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR273; 101Ind.Cas.338
Shah, J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover the amount of damages done by the defendants to the plaintiff's trees by illegally cutting them. The defendants put forward their contention on the merits alleging that they had not cut the plaintiff's trees, but that the trees cut by them were their own trees.2. The First Class Subordinate Judge with Small Cause Court powers tried it as a Small Cause suit, and decided in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree in his favour.3. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have applied to this Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is urged in support of the application that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as it is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court having regard to the provision of Art. 35 (ii) in the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act IX of 1887. This poin...
Tag this Judgment!Ningappa Marbasappa Arleshwar Vs. Gyanaji Pomaji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom157; (1927)29BOMLR269; 101Ind.Cas.155
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the plaintiff' sued the defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaintiff certain land and for possession of the land with mesne profits. The defendant admitted having executed this agreement but said that it had been executed under certain circumstances detailed in his written statement, which rendered the agreement ineffective. The first issue in the case was whether the defendant proved that that agreement was passed by him under the circumstances alleged by him. That issue was answered by the Subordinate Judge in the affirmative, and he dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. An appeal was made by the plaintiff to the District Court, where the defendant did not appear. We are told that that was due to some mistake or fault of the pleader who was engaged. However that may be, the District Judge heard the appeal ex parte, and decided that, even accepting the story of the defendant, the agreement between the defendant and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Tavanappa Burde Vs. Tatya Bharmappa Mirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom257; (1927)29BOMLR280; 101Ind.Cas.343
Patkar, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of the property with past and future mesne profits and costs in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Hukeri. Thus defendant contended that the market value of the property in suit was more than Rs. 5,000 and that the Hukeri Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On April 14, 1924, the Hukeri Subordinate Judge held that the market value of the subject-matter in suit was more than Us. 5,000 and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed against this order and the learned District Judge hold that the best order to pass was to follow the directions of Section 10 of the Court Fees Act. He, therefore, vacated the order of the trial Judge and instead of that he passed the following order :-Plaintiff do within a fortnight of the reaching of the Record in the trial Court amend the plaint by showing the market value of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kalu Mahadu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR707
Shah, J.1. The accused in this case was charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a revenue patil of Mahalpatne village, and the charge against him was that he cheated Government and dishonestly induced Government to part with Rs. 29-10-0 by a misrepresentation that Tania Sakia, a Bhil, was employed as Patkari for the village in 1924-25, when as a matter of fact no Patkari was employed in the village during that year. An objection was taken in the trial Court that the sanction given in this case under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of the accused by the District Magistrate was not sufficient, as the accused was not removeable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Local Government, and as no Court could take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Local Government. This objection was overruled by the trial Magistrate on the ground that by J.D.G.R. No. 2033 of March 17, 1913, the power was delegated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Mahadu Patil Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom432; 102Ind.Cas.342
Lallubhai Shah, J.1. The accused in this case was charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a revenue patil of Mahalpatne village, and the charge against him was that he cheated Government and dishonestly induced Government to part with Rs. 29-10-0 by a misrepresentation that Tania Sakia, a Bhil, was employed as Patkari for the village in 1924-25, when, as a matter of fact, no Patkari was employed in the village during that year. An objection was taken in the trial Court that the sanction given in this case under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of the accused by the District Magistrate was not sufficient, as the accused was not removeable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Local Government, and as no Court could take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Local Government. This objection was overruled by the trial Magistrate on the ground that by J.D.G.R. No. 2033 of March 17, 1913, the power was d...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Laxman Alias Babu Baloba Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1292
Shah, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Poona in respect of an order made by the First Class Magistrate of Poona discharging the accused on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. It may be mentioned that on this reference a rule was issued to the accused, but there is no appearance on behalf of the accused. The Government Pleader has appeared in support of the reference, and we have heard him. We have considered the point arising on the facts which are briefly these.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused hired a cycle at Poona on June 11, 1925, for six hours, but, instead of returning the same in accordance with his written contract, he took it out to Yeola, in the Nasik District, and deposited it with one Damu Namdeo Sali as a security for an advance of Re 6. On these allegations the accused was charged with criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Magistrate held that he had no ...
Tag this Judgment!Shripadbhat Anantbhat Joshi Vs. Rama Babaji Lathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom270; (1927)29BOMLR274; 101Ind.Cas.340
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the lands in suit from the defendant on the allegation that he was their annual tenant, that in 1912 the plaintiffs demanded enhanced rent from the defendant's predecessors-in-title and they gave up the land pleading their inability to give enhanced rent, that thereafter the plaintiffs leased the lands to one Bhau Satgauda Patil under a rent-note for ten years, that Bhau was obstructed in his vahivat by the defendant's predecessors-in-title Sakra and Ningappa, that Bhau brought Suit No. 545 of 1913 to recover possession but the suit was dismissed, and that notice to quit was given at the end of August 1918 to the defendant Rama Babaji and to Ningappa. The defendant's case was that his family held the lands from ancient time as permanent tenants on a fixed yearly rent of Rs. 40, that the defendant's family had been all along in possession, that the suit brought by Bhau Satgauda Patil was instituted at the instance of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »