Mumbai Court October 1927 Judgments
V.P.R.V. Chockalingam Chetty Vs. Seethi Ache
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR220
John Wallis, J.1. The point for decision in these appeals from the High Court at Rangoon is a very short one, but there is ' one other matter dealt with by the trial Judge to which their Lordships desire to refer in the first place-the transaction by which the plaintiff acquired the right to sue for these and other properties in Burma, now valued by him at three lakhs of rupees, from an official assignee in insolvency in another Province for the trifling sum of Rs. 580, which could be of no real advantage to the insolvent estate, having regard to the extent of the liabilities.2. The lands in Burma, which are the subject of these two consolidated suits in the District Court of Pegu, were acquired by a joint Hindu family of Nattukottai Chetties, a moneylending community residing with their families in what is now the Ramnad District in the south-east of the Madras Presidency, and carrying on business by their agents in other parts of India, Burma, the Straits Settlements and elsewhere. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Tribhiwandas Thakkar Vs. Mowjee Waghjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom95; (1928)30BOMLR122
Kemp, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff, a certified broker and member of the East India Cotton Association, sues the defendant for loss sustained by the plaintiff owing to the repudiation by the defendant of an order for purchase of 200 fully good machine ginned Broach cotton for the April-May 1927 delivery alleged by the plaintiff to have been placed with him on September 15, 1926. The defendant denies that he gave any instructions for the order. It appears that there were some six or seven previous transactions between the parties which were brought about by the sub-broker Narotamdas. In those cases the contract which was exchanged between the parties was signed by the defendant. Here it may shortly be stated what the procedure is when an order is given. The broker prepares two counterparts of the contract one of which is signed by the broker. The two counterparts are sent to the constituent in order that he may retain the one signed by the broker and sign and return the other to the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of Bombay Vs. Charandas Vassonji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom104; (1928)30BOMLR169; 108Ind.Cas.488
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a suit by the Municipal Corporation of Bombay to recover a sum of Rs. 4158-11-0 being the balance of the amount due to them for Municipal property taxes from the years 1922 to 1927 in respect of two properties belonging to the defendants Nos. 2091 and 2093 situate in D Ward, Bombay. The claim so far as property No. 2091 is concerned is baaed upon an increase in the assessment of the property from 1922 to 1925 and another increase thereafter from 1925 to 1927. The claim as to the other property is based on an increase in the assessment from the year 1922.2. The defence briefly is that the Municipality is not entitled to recover the increased assessment in respect of property No. 2091 as they have not complied with the provisions of the Municipal Act, and in respect of the other property the same reason is advanced for resisting the claim and the further reason that that property was demolished some time in May 1923 and notice of such demolition was given to the C...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bajirao Abaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom33; (1927)29BOMLR1587
Patkar, J.1. This is an application filed by one Bajirao Abaji Kulkarni who has been practising as a mukhtyar for the last six years since 1921 in the Sinnar Taluka in the Nasik District. It appears that the Bar Association of Sinnar made a representation to the District Magistrate of Nasik who parsed an order that in future the services of mukhtyars should not be employed in criminal or other cases at Sinnar unless the Magistrate certifies under his own hand that the party is too poor to engage the services of a qualified pleader.2. The first question which arises for consideration in this case is whether this is an order of a criminal Court which falls within Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Our attention has been invited to the precedents of this Court in the cases of Tamannacharya alias Narsinh Guracharya Shiggaon (1924) Cr. Rev. No. 407 of 1924 and Reg. v. Ramchandra (1862) Unrep. Cr. C. 1 and to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of In the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Sunder Singh Vs. Jagannath Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR110
Duff, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal from two decrees both of November 25, 1924, of the Court of Judicial Commissioner of Oudh at Lucknow, which were pronounced in an appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh. The question raised by the appeal is whether certain legacies in a will of the late Drigbijai Singh, a taluqdar of Athgawan, in the District of Partabgarh, are valid, and the answer to this question must be governed by the determination of the issue, which was the real issue in the Courts below, whether or not the legatees entitled to the benefit of these legacies, if valid, signed the will as attesting witnesses. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner held, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge, that this issue must be determined in favour of the respondents.2. The testator, by his will, appointed his eldest son, Lai Bahadur Singh, as taluqdar after him, and gave to each of his three younger sons, Jagannath Singh, Kan Bahadur Singh, and Jang Bahadur Singh, ce...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavprasad Nanuram Pandit Vs. Monghilal Ramanand Maheshri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom97; (1928)30BOMLR186; 108Ind.Cas.482
Rangnekar, J.1. [After deciding certain questions on which the parties agreed, his Lordship proceeded :]2. The real dispute between the parties is limited to question No. 2, and that question is whether a valid trust has been created in respect of the sum of Rs. 88,914-9-3 mentioned in para, 5 of the plaint The dispute is between the Advocate General, who is the fifth defendant in the summons, and the other parties excepting the executors who submit themselves to the orders of the Court.3. It is contended by the Advocate General that there is a valid trust with regard to this sum, and the other parties deny that any valid trust was created or declared with regard to it. It appears from the plaint and the written statement which have been put in on behalf of the Advocate General that this sum of Rs. 88,914-9-3 appears in the account books of Jagannath as being credited to what is called the school account under date Posh Vad 4th Samvat year 1974, corresponding to January 1, 1918, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shaikh Usman Shaikh Umar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1581
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the accused Shaikh Usman Shaikh Umar was tried on charges under Sections 277 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Nandurbar, and the convictions and sentences have been upheld by the District Magistrate, West Khandesh.2. It appears that on December 14, 1926, the prosecution case was finished, the charge was framed, and after the examination of the accused the ease was adjourned to December 22, 1926. On December 15, 1926, an application was made on behalf of the accused requesting that he should be furnished with the copies of the statements of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code as he had to cross-examine the witnesses on December 22, 1926, and stating that he would not be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses unless the copies were given to him, The Police Prosecutor made an endorsement on the application that he objected to the copies being granted a...
Tag this Judgment!Mangaldas Kilabhai Patel Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom55(1); (1928)30BOMLR54
Patkar, J.1. In this case, one Patel Trikamlal Gopaldas died on June 20, 1919, having made a will dated May 10, 1919. By his will he appointed his wife Bai Ujam and nephew's sons, the minors Ramkrishna and Govindlal, as joint owners of his estate and he appointed his wife as the executrix of the will. According to paragraph 12 of the will, on the death of his wife, the aforesaid sons of his nephew, Ramkrishna Jethalal and Govindlal. Jethalal, were to take possession of his estate. Patel Trikamlal left moveable and immovcablo property and made detailed dispositions with regard to thorn in his will. Bai Ujam died on August 8, 1924, and an application was made by one Mangaldas KUabhai on behalf of minors Ramkrishna and Govindlal for letters of administration to the estate of Bai Ujam m respect of certain shares and fixed deposits and current accounts mentioned in Schedule A of the application amounting to Rs 39,611. The applicant was ordered to pay the full Court fees under' Clause 11, Sc...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shripad G. Chandavarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom184; (1928)30BOMLR70; 108Ind.Cas.27
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship after narrating the facts of the ease proceeded :] This application is made by the accused, and he prays, first, that the proceedings against him should be quashed, and secondly, in case the proceedings were not quashed, the order of transfer made by the District Magistrate without notice to him should be set aside, and the case should be sent back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, N.D.2. It is urged on behalf of the accused that no offence is committed by the pleader under Section 216, firstly, on the ground that the warrant was not issued in the exercise of the lawful powers of the First Class Magistrate, and, secondly, that the accused did not harbour or conceal Ramaji with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended. It is urged that the warrant of arrest against Ramaji, Ex. 15, issued on August 24, 1926, was illegal as the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence of murder under Section 190, Clause (e), of the Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadanand Pandurg Mhatre Vs. Parashram Pandurang Mhatre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom108; (1928)30BOMLR153; 108Ind.Cas.705
Rangnekar, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case proceeded:] The summons in the case asked for a declaration that the right, title and interest of defendants Nos. 1-4 in the Dadar property be charged with the payment of the costs of the applicants. Now although the matter was argued twice it did not strike any one as to what the summons was for. The summons does not ask for a declaration of priority as regards the applicants' costs over the claim of Navalkar under his mortgage. Yet in effect the argument from the commencement has been confined to such a claim, and in effect the contest is between the applicants and the mortgagee as to priority of charge. It is true that in the affidavit in support of the applicants' summons they claim priority for their costs over the mortgagee's claim, but they did not do so in the summons itself. Having regard to the arguments before me, I am willing to treat the summons as including the claim for priority but direct that the sum...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »