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.
Niamat Rai Vs. DIn Dayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR886
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Lahore reversing the decree of the District Judge of Ferozpore in Suit No. 40 of 1915, which was brought on behalf of Din Dayal and Bansari Basil, who were minors, to recover certain lands, the property of the joint family, which had been sold by Lachhman Das, the managing member of the family, to defendants Nos. 2 to 6, under a sale-deed dated January 1, 1913. Lachhman Das was made the first defendant, and Mussamat Dhani, the mother of the minor plaintiffs, who had joined in executing the sale deed, was also impleaded as the seventh defendant. The suit was instituted by Dal Chand, the minors' brother-in-law, as their next friend. He stated to the Court that he had brought it at the instance of the elder minor, who shortly afterwards attained majority, and was brought on the record as the first plaintiff and the next friend of the minor second plaintiff. The plaint alleged that the sale had been made for a nominal s...
Tyabji, Dayabhai and Co. Vs. Jetha Devji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom542
Marten, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza, dismissing, inter alia, a summons taken out on September 27, 1926, in two suits, Nos. 1405 of 1922 and 3104 of 1925. by Messrs. Tyabji Dayabhai & Co., attorneys for the plaintiff Hansraj Tejmal in the first suit. That summons asked for a declaration that the applicants had a lien on the sum of Rs. 3.572-9-8 then in the hands of the Sheriff of Bombay as received by him in Suit No. 3104 of 1925, and that by reason of that lien the sheriff do pay the said sum to the applicants in priority to the attaching craditors Messrs. Jetha Davji & Co., the plaintiffs in suit No. 3104 of 1925. Mr. Ju3tic Mirza, dismissed the summons; The applicants, the attorneys, appeal.2. The case raises a point of importance not only to the attorneys of this High Court, but also to the public, as the question turns on what is the exact right of attorneys in respect of what is generally described as a particular lien on funds recovered in a suit...
Tyabji, Dayabhai and Co. Vs. Jetha Devji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1196
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza dismissing, inter alia, a summons taken out on September 27, 1926, in two suits, Nos. 1405 of 1922 and 8104 of 1925, by Messrs. Tyabji, Dayabhai & Co., attorneys for the plaintiffs Hansraj Tejmal in the first suit. That summons asked for a declaration that the applicants had a lien on the sum of Rs. 3,572-9-8 then in the hands of the Sheriff of Bombay as received by him in Suit No. 3104 of 1925, and that by reason of that lien the Sheriff do pay the said sum to the applicants in priority to the attaching creditors Messrs. Jetha Devji & Co., the plaintiffs in Suit No. 3104 of 1925. Mr. Justice Mirza dismissed the summons. The applicants, the attorneys,' appeal.2. The case raises a point of importance not only to the attorneys of this High Court, but also to the public, as the question turns on what is the exact right of attorneys in respect of what is generally described as a particular lion on funds rec...
Krishnarao Khanderao Parelkar Vs. Virji Peraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR895
Fawcett, J.1. This is an application for revision of the judgment and decree of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, directing the applicant to vacate certain premises and pay the costs of the suit. In that suit the plaintiffs were the mortgagees in possession and had terminated the tenancy of the applicant by a notice to quit. The applicant in his defence, inter alia, pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the standard rent of the premises occupied by the applicant was less than Rs. 30, and that accordingly a certificate from the Controller of Rents had to be filed under Section 17 of the Bombay Rent (No. 2) Act 1918. This contention was, however, rejected by the Chief Judge. He says:-The facts are that defendants came to occupy these premises in dispute, in May 1915, and are still residing there, but the premises they occupy are not the identical ones occupied by the tenant in February and March 1915, but different i.e., t...
Dhondu Narayan Shet Vs. Vaman Govind Patvardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom455; (1927)29BOMLR925; 103Ind.Cas.262
Crump, J.1. In this case the suit was in the first instance decided in favour of the plaintiffs, a decree being made ex parte owing to the non-appearance of the defendant. Subsequently on the defendant's application that ex parte decree was set aside, and there was a hearing on the merits with the result that the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed from this decree of the Subordinate Judge to the District Court, and made it a ground of their appeal that the lower Court acted wrongly in setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned District Judge considered the grounds on which the ex parte decree was set aside and held that they were not such as to justify the lower Court in setting aside the decree, and therefore allowed the appeal and restored the original ex parte decree. The case now comes before us in second appeal, and the first point raised for determination is whether the District Judge could consider the propriety of the order setting aside the ex parte de...
Nathubhai Ichharam Vs. Narayanacharya Ramacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom470; (1927)29BOMLR937
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff respondent in this appeal, as the owner and manager of the temple of Shri Balaji at Surat, sued for the administration of the estate left by the deceased Vijubhai Kashidas, who died on March 27, 1920. He made a will in about 1907, under which, after the death of his then wife, Bhikhi, he dedicated his estate to this temple. Subsequently, Bhikhi died and Vijubhai remarried. After his death his second widow, whose posthumous daughter had died, contracted a natra marriage. The plaintiff, accordingly, sued for administration and accounts from the executors of this will defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 2 was a cousin of the deceased, but is held by the Subordinate Judge to be under no liability to account, not having administered the estate. Defendant No. 1 was, on the other hand, held to be liable, and a preliminary decree has been passed against him. He appeals.2. The first point taken on his behalf is that there has been misjoinder and non-joinder vitiat...
Ladkavahoo Vs. Charandas Chaturbhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom519; (1927)29BOMLR1082
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This application is with reference to a deficiency in the income of funds set apart to answer an annuity payable to the appellant, defendant No. 5, under an order of this appellate Court dated January 25, 1926. Under the will of her husband this lady was given inter alia by Clause 7 an annuity of Rs. 750 a month. It was directed to be paid out of the residuary estate. A decision was given by Mr. Justice Kajiji which subsequently went to the appellate Court who reversed it and directed an inquiry before the Commissioner to ascertain in effect the proper sum to be set apart to answer the annuity. Unfortunately although we have a full judgment on the first hearing when the appellate Court ordered a reference before the Commissioner, we have no judgment on the second occasion when the order in question was made. That order expressly provides that the lady is to be paid the interest on a particular sum of Rs. 2,29,500 as and when such interest should accrue due,...
In Re: Hyderbhai Husseinbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom633; (1927)29BOMLR1455
Talyarkhan, J.1. This la a creditors' petition praying that Hyderbhai Husseinbhai who is alleged to be indebted to the several petitioners in the various sums set out in the petition, may be adjudicated insolvent, The act of insolvency alleged against the debtor is, that the property of the debtor consisting of the decree of the Bombay High Court passed in his favour in Suit No. 3668 of 1922 against one Ebrahim Ismail and others has been attached for a period of not less than twenty-one days in execution of a decree of this Court in Suit No. 383 of 1926 against the debtor. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the petition that the attachment was levied on or about March 23, 1926, and that the attachment is still subsisting. The petitioners contend that on these facts, which are not disputed, the debtor is guilty of an act of insolvency mentioned in Section 9(e) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, and is liable to be adjudicated insolvent on his creditors' petition.2. Section...
Krishnarao Kanderao Parelkar Vs. Virji Peraj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom431
Fawcett, J.1. This is an application for revision of the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, directing the applicant to vacate certain premises, and pay the costs of the suit. In that suit the plaintiffs were the mortgagees in possession and had terminated the tenancy of the applicant by a notice to quit. The applicant in his defence, inter alia, pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the standard rent of the premises occupied by the applicant was less than Rs. 30, and that accordingly a certificate from the Controller of Rents had to be filed under Section 17 of the Bombay 'Rent (No. 2) Act 1918. This contention was, however, rejected by the Chief Judge. He says:The facts are that defendants came to occupy these premises in dispute, in May 1915, and are still residing there, but the premises they occupy are not the identical ones occupied by the tenant in February and March 1915, but different i.e' they use the whole o...
Emperor Vs. Shivaswami Guruswami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom440; (1927)29BOMLR742
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts as above, proceeded :] It is argued by the learned Government Pleader that one of the offences, namely, that under Section 414, was a cognizable offence and therefore the investigation was legal, and even if the case be considered as relating to non-cognizable offences, the report of the Police should be considered as a complaint under Clause (a) of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if it did not fall under Clause (b) of Section 190. It. appears that the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code mentioned as one of the offences in the charge-sheet is a cognizable offence, and the investigation by the Sub-Inspector in respect of the other non-cognizable offences could not be illegal if they were also investigated during the investigation of the cognizable offences. See the case of In re Venkanna A.I.R. [1925] Mad. 856. As no offence under Section 414 is either alleged or proved to have been committed by the accused i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »