Mumbai Court March 1927 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.
Vibhudapriya Thirtha Swamiar Vs. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR955
Ameer Ali, J.1. The appellant in this case is the Mathadhipathi or superior of the Admar math at Udipi in the South Kanara District, and he sues the defendant, the present Mathadhipathi of another institution called the Sirur math (in the same town), for certain monies which he alleges are due to him by the defendant's predecessor in office. The defendant is a minor and defends this action by his father as guardian.2. The plaintiff alleges that the predecessor of the defendant borrowed the money for the purposes of the math, and the transactions ranged over a long period from 1902 until about the time of his death in 1916; that a settlement of account was arrived at on August 14 in that year and an acknowledgment was signed by the deceased Matadhipathi (Exh. C. on the record).3. The Sirur Mathadhipathi died on September 27, 1916, and the plaintiff brought his suit against his successor on August 14, 1919. It should be mentioned that as the deceased Mathadhipathi had made no nomination ...
Narayan Das Khettry Vs. Jatindra Nath Roy Chowdhry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1143
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, given on March 12, 1925, which reversed a judgment and decree dated August 24, 1922, of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 24 Perganas.2. The material facts are as follows:-Satyendra Nath Roy, who was the predecessor of the defendants, was the proprietor of the holding in question.3. The holding was sold in December, 1919, under the provisions of Act XI of 1859 for arrears of the Government Revenue of Rs. 2 annas 8 and pie 1.4. The plaintiff purchased the holding at the sale for the sum of Rs. 2,900. Application was made to the Divisional Commissioner by the defendants or their predecessor to have the sale set aside, but the application was refused.5. On July 5, 1920, a sale certificate was issued to the plaintiff by the Collector of the 24 Perganas, certifying that the plaintiff had purchased, under Act XI of 1859, the mahal, whi...
In Re: Anya Shidya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR715
Fawcett, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, North Kolaba, rejecting an application made by the applicants for taking certain action under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is a dispute between the petitioners, who are the villagers of Belpada, and the opponents, who are the villagers of Sheve, as to a right of fishing in a creek known as Lagachee Khar, The applicants moved the Magistrate to take action under Section 147 on the ground that they had a right to fish in this creek, and that on May 23, 1926, they were fishing as usual there, when the opponents with about one hundred persons from Sheve came to attack them, assaulted some of them, and stopped the fishing forcibly. On the other hand, the opponents, when they appeared before the Magistrate, relied upon a decree of this Court passed in their favour in 1915, in which in a suit between certain representatives of the villagers of Sheve and certain representa...
Abaji Vithal Paranjpe Vs. Narhari Keshav Dharap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom460; (1927)29BOMLR947
Crump, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in insolvency. The insolvency in question, supposing it to be established, arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Mahad Court and not within the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the First Class Subordinate Judge. As is well known there is in the Thana District, as in many other Districts, a First Class Subordinate Judge who has a jurisdiction within a certain local area inside that District, which is known as his ordinary jurisdiction. Within those local limits his pecuniary jurisdiction extends to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature. In addition to that jurisdiction the First Class Subordinate Judge has a special jurisdiction, as it is termed, conferred by Section 25 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. That special jurisdiction is in respect of suits and proceedings of a civil ...
Bai Meherbai Sorabji Master Vs. Pherozshaw Sorabji Gazdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1220
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal is one only as to costs. But it raises questions of some importance as between suits in the High Court and suits in the Small Causes Court.2. The plaintiff and defendant were landlord and tenant. On September 25, 1925, the plaintiff gave a notice to quit by January 1, 1926, That notice was not complied with. Accordingly, on January 6, 1926, this suit was filed in the High Court claiming (a) ejectment;(b) rent from April 1, 1925, to December 31, 1925, and compensation thereafter at Rs. 500 per month; and (c) Rs. 30 as rent for the garage from September 1, 1925, to December 31, 1925, and compensation thereafter at Rs. 50 a month. The letting of the main building, viz., the first floor thereof, and the letting of the garage were separate tenancies. The total under (b) would be Rs. 1,542, and under (c) Rs. 175 calculated up to January 29, 1926.3. On January 19, the writ in the High Court suit was served. On January 29, the defendant vacated both pre...
Emperor Vs. Dhondu Bapu Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR713
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the complainant, Kalu Bhila Kunbi, lodged a complaint against forty-seven persons for having defamed the complainant in their petitions to the Assistant Collector, W.D. The learned Magistrate, without taking any evidence in the case, applied exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code to the case of the accused and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate directed further enquiry under Section 436. The order of the District Magistrate ordering further enquiry is challenged before us on two grounds, firstly, that no notice was given to thirteen of the accused, and, secondly, that no reasons have been given by the District Magistrate in support of his order for further enquiry.2. With regard to the first point, a proviso to Section 436 is newly added. Though under the old Code, it was not necessary that there should be a notice before ordering further enquiry, it was held that the Court did not ex...
Emperor Vs. Chhaganlal Motiram Mehtaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR733; 103Ind.Cas.602
Fawcett, J.1. In this case, the applicant has been convicted of a breach of Sub-section (5) of Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 (Act III of 1901) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 121. That conviction was confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Surat. Our interference is sought on various legal points.2. The first point urged is, that the prosecution was barred by limitation, in view of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 161 of the Act. That proviso says, that 'no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except within six months next after the commission of such offence.' The material facts in this case as regards this building are, that the accused gave notice about wanting to build on March 31, 1924. The Municipality made various demands for particulars, which need not be now specified; but, without the Municipality having given any permission to build, the applicant began digging for the foundations of the proposed building. Tha...
The Pratap Spinning, Weaving and C. Co. Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom468; (1927)29BOMLR944
Crump, J.1. This was an action by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 40,000 odd as damages from the defendants, the G.I.P. Railway Company. As the case comes before us there is no dispute on those facts which are necessary for our decision. On December 13, 1921, 119 cases of machinery were consigned from Wadi Bunder goods station to Amalner. In the course of the journey a portion of those goods was damaged by fire and rendered useless. The goods were consigned under a risk note in Form B. The question is whether in the circumstances the plaintiffs can recover damages from the railway company. It is unnecessary for us to consider here the various grounds which were raised in the Court below and which have been decided against the plaintiffs, and though it is true as pointed out by the learned Advocate General that the plaintiffs' case has from time to time varied, that appears to be due to the fact that the plaintiffs or their legal advisers were not precisely aware of the true lega...
Chetandas Daga Vs. Radhakisson Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom553; (1927)29BOMLR1087
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza by which he dismissed a petitition to set aside an award alleged to have been made by the Marwari Chamber of Commerce Ltd. in an alleged dispute between the petitioners and the respondents.2. It appears that this Chamber of Commerce was incorporated on November 25, 1925, under the Indian Companies Act, but that the transactions between the parties in linseed were before that date; and further that certain hundies which were given by the petitioners to the respondents in an alleged settlement of those transactions were all payable before the date when the Chamber was incorporated. On the other hand there was before that date an unregistered Marwari Chamber of Commerce of which both the petitioners and the respondents were members.3. The learned Judge took the view that the bye-laws of the old Chamber amounted to a compulsory provision for arbitration. On the evidence before the learned Judge we are of op...
Dhondu Bapu Gujar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom436
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the complainant, Kalu Bhila Kunbi, lodged acomplaint, against forty-seven persons for having defamed the complainant in their petitions to the Assistant, Collector. W.D. The learned Magistrate, without taking any evidence in the case, applied Excep. 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code to the case of the accused and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal P.C. The District Magistrate directed, further enquiry under Section 436. The order of the. District Magistrate ordering further enquiry is challenged before us on two grounds, firstly, that no notice was given to thirteen of the accused ; and, secondly, that no reasons have been given by the District Magistrate in support of his order for further enquiry. 2. With regard to the first point, a proviso to Section 436 is newly added. Though under the old Code, it was not necessary that there should be a notice before ordering further enquiry it was held that the Court , did not exercise a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »