Mumbai Court February 1928 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.
Kasanji Kuverji Vs. the Surat Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom247; (1928)30BOMLR673
Fawcett, J.1. The facts of the case are fully stated in the order of the lower Court. After considering the arguments I can see no sufficient reason to say that that order is wrong. The case of Nur Mahomed v. Secretary of State (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 582 is distinctly in favour of the respondents, because that also was a case for an injunction, and yet pleader's fees were assessed on the value of the subject-matter which happened to be land. In the judgment, it is said (p. 587):-There is a considerable distinction between a question in dispute which will affect the result of the suit according to the manner in which it is decided by the Court, and the subject-matter of the suit which clearly is the thing about which a dispute has arisen.2. These observations, I think, apply to the present case. The question in dispute, no doubt, was the legal powers of the Municipality to pass certain resolutions. But, at the-same time, the subject-matter in dispute, undoubtedly, covered certain payments ...
Emperor Vs. Bhagwandas Bakshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR655
Fawcett, J.1. The appellant Bhagwandas Bakshi has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, of an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 201, in default two months' further rigorous imprisonment.2. Admittedly, the appellant was driving a motor-bus from the direction of the Jamsetjee Jijibhoy Hospital, and when he came to a stationary tram car, instead of proceeding straight on to his left, he drove his bus to the other side of the tram, that is to his right, with the result that the bus knocked over a boy of fourteen, who had got down from the rear entrance of the tram. The boy had his head fractured and was taken to a hospital, where he subsequently died.3. The Magistrate has held that the death of the boy was due to a rash or negligent act of the accused, within the meaning of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code In coming to this conclusion the Magistrate has mainly relied upon the a...
Kishanlal Ratanlal Daphtary Vs. Janmejaya Chhabildas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR992
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts of the case as above, proceeded.] It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the introduction of the survey in the village would not affect the right of the plaintiff as a Sutidar, that the defendants had not the right of increasing the money valuation of the grain rental, that the defendants have failed to prove that there was any relation of landlord and tenant as alleged by him, and that the levy of increased assessment was not justifiable in the absence of any contract and was not authorized under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the finding of the learned Joint Judge that the lauds in suit were Suti is erroneous on the evidence in the case, and even if the plaintiff was a Sutidar of the lands in suit, the tenure would subsist so long as the lands remained rice lands, and the tenure created essentially for the purpose of cultivation would come to an end on puttin...
Sitaram Krishna Padhye Vs. Chimandas Fatehchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom516; (1928)30BOMLR1300
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This suit is brought on three hundis running in the following form :-Fifty-six days after date I promise to pay Seth Chimandas Fatehchand or order the sum of Rs. 600 only for value received in cash. G.V. Athale, Managing Proprietor, Gangadhar & B. Friends, Sandhurst Road, Bombay No. 4.Chimandas Fatehchand, the payee, are the plaintiffs, G.V. Athale is the first defendant, Gangadhar & B. Friends are the second defendants. The appellant before us is one S.K. Padhye, and the writ in this case was served on him as a partner the alleged firm of the second defendants. He appeared under protest, and subsequently obtained unconditional leave to B. defend, and put in a written statement making a general defence to the suit and putting the plaintiffs to strict proof on all points.2. At the trial, issues were raised as to whether Padhye was a partner with defendants No. 2, and whether he held himself out as a partner in the second defendant firm. The learned Judge ans...
Kisanlal Ratanlal Daphtary Vs. Janmejaya Chhabildas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom457; 118Ind.Cas.244
Patkar, J.1. After stating the facts:] It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the introduction of the survey in the village | would not affect the right of the plaintiff as a sutidar, that the defendants had not the right of increasing the money valuation of the grain rental, that the defendants have failed to prove that there was any relation of landlord and tenant as alleged by him, and that the levy of increased assessment was not justifiable in the absence of any contract and was not authorized under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the finding of the learned Joint Judge that the lands in suit were suti is erroneous on the evidence in the case, and even if the plaintiff was a sutidar of the lands in suit, the tenure would subsist so long as the lands remained rice lands, and the tenure created essentially for the purpose of cultivation would come to an end on putting the lands to a non-agricultural use under Secti...
Maganlal Harjibhai Vs. Amichand Gulabji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom319; (1928)30BOMLR733
Patkar, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sued to recover Rs. 5,697-13-6 as principal and Rs. 1,027-2-6 as interest from defendants Nos. 1 and 4 personally and from the joint family property of the defendants. The suit was brought on December 22, 1923, on a Khata, Exhibit 48, dated December 28, 1920. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 are the debtors of the plaintiffs' family and passed ruzu khatas from time to time from the year 1898. The plaintiffs' father died in the year 1904. It is necessary to mention only the recent Khatas. Exhibit 5S was passed on March 21, 1912. The subsequent Khatas were Exhibit 56, dated December 20, 1914, Exhibit 57, dated January 4, 1918, and the last Exhibit 48, dated December 28, 1920. The suit was brought on December 22, 1923. The first plaintiff attained majority on July 26, 1916, and plaintiff No. 2 attained majority in 1921. If each of the ruzu khatas had been passed regularly within three years of the preceding one, the suit would have been within time. But Exh...
Jijibhoy N. Surty Vs. T.S. Chettyer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR842
Phillimore, J.1. The appellant is plaintiff in a suit brought on the original side of the High Court of Rangoon which was dismissed on January 8, 1925, On April 28 he presented to the appellate side of the Court ft memorandum of appeal against the decree.2. The Judge before whom the appeal came for admission noted that the appeal appeared to be out of time and directed that this point should be argued as a preliminary question before a bench of the High Court. Thereupon the appellant filed affidavits explaining the delay, and also a petition praying for an extension of time. The Court decided that he was in delay, and that no sufficient reason had been shown for any indulgence and dismissed the appeal.3. Thereupon the appellant applied for a review of the decree dismissing the appeal, and for the first time argued that under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, the time during which he was procuring a copy of the decree and a copy of what is called the judgment-that is, the Jud...
Chhunna Mal Ram Nath Vs. Mool Chand Ram Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR837
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated January 5, 1925, which reversed the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi dated January 14, 1924, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff' with costs.2. The suit out of which this appeal, has arisen was one claiming damages for the non-delivery by the respondents of certain goods which the latter had agreed to sell and the appellants had agreed to purchase.3. The principal question for decision in the appeal is whether under the circumstances proved in the case the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from the respondents for the alleged breach of their contract for the sale and delivery of the aforesaid goods.4. In the order of Court of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi dated August 9, 1921, it is stated that the respondents (the defendants) had presented for the second time an application to be at liberty to add a plea that the plaintiffs were not ready or willing to perform the...
Gulabbhai Kanthadbhai Vs. Sohangdasji Mohandasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom183; (1928)30BOMLR535; 110Ind.Cas.263
Fawcett, J.1. The lower Court has held that the case is one which falls within the remarks made in Bai Meherbai v. Magan-chand I.L.R. (1904) Bom. 96: 6 Bom. L.R. 853. In that case Chandavarkar J. himself pointed out that succeeding Shebaita 'in fact form a continuing representation of the idol's property.' There is, therefore, no proper scope for the theory that, where a Shebait dies, a creditor who claims to be paid out of the idol's property in respect of a debt incurred by such Shebait, can bring an administration suit on behalf of himself and all other creditors of the deceased Shebait.2. Chandavarkar J. in Gangaram v. Nacjindas I.L.R.(1908) Bom. 381: 10 Bom. L.R. 519 pointed out the limitations that were applicable to those observations.3. In the present case Mr. Dave for the applicant has pointed out that, so far as he seeks relief against a Hindu idol, the latter is a 'juristic entity' with its interests attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is, in la...
Gyanji Pomaji Marwadi Vs. Ningappa Marbasappa Arleshwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom308; (1928)30BOMLR668
Fawcett, J.1. This application arises out of the judgment of this Court passed on September 2, 1926. In that judgment it was held that the document sued upon required registration in view of the Privy Council decision in Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh : (1926)28BOMLR1372 That decision was contrary to the general view of the law that had been previously held in India, and at the time of the hearing' of the appeal, there was a possibility that the Legislature might intervene and pass an Act validating documents that had not been registered on account of the previous view of the law. That possibility was referred to in my judgment, but I remarked that it could not affect the decision of the present case, and accordingly held that the objection was a good one, sufficient to require the plaintiff's suit to be dismissed as it had been in the trial Court. On the other hand, I said 29 Bom. L.E. 272):p>In view of the possibility I have just mentioned, I think it is right that we should give oar dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »