Mumbai Court March 1928 Judgments
Ahmed Hassan Vs. Hassan Mahomed Malek
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom305; (1928)30BOMLR885
Madgavkar, J.1. These two appeals arise from a suit and a cross suit, between father and son, the father claiming to eject, the son to retain possession of a house in virtue of an agreement passed by the father and sister-in-law permitting the son to occupy the house for life. It was common ground that this agreement was passed immediately after the complaint of prosecution instituted by the son's wife about a year before the suit in respect of grievous hurt alleged to have been caused to her by the mother and sister-in-law. The case was compounded at the instance of the son with the consent of the Court which entered an order of acquittal.2. The trial Court held the agreement valid in law and not compulsorily registrable, upheld the claim of the son to continue to occupy the house, and rejected the claim of the father to evict. In appeal the District Court held that under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence was compounded with the permission of the Court not by t...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Laxman Kadam Vs. Maheshwar Laxman Gondhalekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1089; 113Ind.Cas.384
Patkar J. 1. This suit was brought by Kadams the present plaintiffs to redeem a mortgage, dated June 2, 1829, which comprised four pies takshim belonging to the present plaintiffs, It is conceded that the mortgage security was split up. By Exhibit 47, the purshis signed by the pleaders on behalf of the defendants, it is admitted that the plaintiffs' share comprises only four pies and that if accounts are taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, the profits in respect of the four pies share will be found Sufficient to wipe off the whole mortgage debt. The only question, therefore, that arises for decision is whether the present suit is maintainable notwithstanding the previous decision in Suits Nos. 1217 of 1866 and 351 of 1911. Both the lower Courts held that the present suit was not barred by virtue of the decision in Suit No. 351 of 1921. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred by the decision in Suit No. 1217 of 1866, but the lower appellate Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Hassan Vs. Hassan Mahomed Malek
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.459
Madgavkar, J.1. These two appeals arise from a suit and a cross-suit, between father and Bon, the father claiming to eject, the son toretain possession of a house in virtue of an agreement passed by the father and sister-in-law 'permitting the son to occupy the house for life. It was common ground that this agreement was passed immediately after the complaint of prosecution instituted by the son's wife about a year before the suit in respect of grievous hurt alleged to have been caused to her by the mother and sister-in-law. The case was compounded at the instance of the son with the consent of the Court which entered an order of acquittal.2. The trial Court held the agreement valid in law and not compulsorily registrable, upheld the claim of the son to continue to occupy the house, and rejected the claim of the father to evict. In appeal the District Court held that under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence was compounded with the permission of the Court not by t...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Jang Bahadur Vs. the Bank of Upper India, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1373
1. This an appeal from an order of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which confirmed an order of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi, dismissing the appellant's application that the proceedings in execution of the respondents' decree against him should be discontinued.2. The facts are simple. The respondents obtained a decree absolute for sale on a mortgage against Raja Durga Prasad (since deceased), the father of the appellant, in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge of Lucknow. As the property which the decree-holder sought to sell under that decree was situate in the district Judgment of Hardoi, the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow, who passed the decree, sent it for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the respondents in due course started an execution proceeding No. 175 of 1916 in the Hardoi Court.3. The judgment-debtor then died on April 23, 1920. On May 25 following the respondents filed a petit...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Chanchal Vs. Chimanlal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom238; (1928)30BOMLR685
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, a Hindu widow, started for a pious pilgrimage all over India with a lady called Navi Kaki, the father's mother of the minor defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the mother-in-law of their mother defendant-respondent No. 3. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover expenses alleged by her to have been incurred during the pilgrimage on account of Navi Kaki on the ground that respondent No. 3 the widow was managing the estate of the minors respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and had promised to reimburse her the amount with interest. The trial Court, after going carefully into the accounts and all the items, held that respondent No. 3 had promised to pay the amount but that no agreement to pay interest was proved and no interest was claimable. It also held that while a portion of the expenditure was incurred for the spiritual benefit of the deceased father of the minors and could be decreed against the estate, the remainder was not and could only be decre...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. NurudIn Sheikh Adam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR954
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the judgment of the Bench of Magistrates is certainly open to the criticism that it does not properly comply with the provisions of Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This section says that the Bench shall record a judgment embodying the substance of the evidence, whereas the judgment contains no reference to any evidence that may have been given on behalf of the Municipality, such as that of the complainant, D.M. Daru; and although there is a reference to certain defence evidence, the substance of it is not stated, but merely the fact that the Bench consider it unreliable. No doubt, it can be inferred that evidence was given in support of the accused's statement that the connection had been made some twelve years ago. But the provisions of Section 264 require that the substance should be plainly stated and not that the Court should be driven to inferences in order to find out the substance of the evidence.2. A further objection has been made that th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babu Hansanali Mujawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR653
Fawcett, J.1. It is objected that the First Class Magistrate, having had the case transferred to him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, had no power to transfer the case again to the Third Class Magistrate who finally disposed of it, There is no doubt authority for this proposition in Bashir Husain v. Ali Husain I.L.R.(1913) I But assuming that this is so, still in our opinion the case is one that falls under Clause (f) of Section 529, Criminal Procedure Code. The First Class Magistrate was not empowered by law to transfer the case to the Third Class Magistrate, but he erroneously and in good faith did so transfer it. There is nothing to show that the Magistrate did not believe that ha had power to transfer; and we should, in the absence of anything to the contrary, assume bona fides. Accordingly his proceedings are not to be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered. That, in our opinion, means that his order of transfer should not be treated as so invalid as to prev...
Tag this Judgment!The Mercantile Bank of India Limited Vs. Capt. Vincent L. D'silva
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom436; (1928)30BOMLR1225
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. Our judgment in this appeal must be taken along with our judgments of yesterday evening in the two preceeding appeals, viz., Nos. 32 and 38 of 1927.2. In the present case we have to deal with thirteen debentures of the Bombay Improvement Trust, and one debenture of the Bombay Municipality. Different questions arise on each of them. As regards ten out of the thirteen Improvement Trust debentures, the case is similar to that decided in Appeal No. 32, viz., that the Alliance Bank renewed the old debenture and obtained a new debenture in their own name which was subsequently transferred by endorsement in favour of the Mercantile Bank for valuable consideration. We have held in effect that this second document like the first was a negotiable instrument, and that the Mercantile Bank, being bona fide holders of this second document for value without notice, they are protected and can retain it notwithstanding any defect in title there may have been in the Alliance...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Hasanali Mujawar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom286; 115Ind.Cas.399
Charles Fawcett, Acting, C.J.1. It is objected that the First Class Magistrate, having had the case transferred to him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, had no power to transfer the case again to the Third Class Magistrate who finally disposed of it. There is no doubt authority for this proposition in Bashir Husain v. Ali Husain 23 Ind. Cas. 1006 . But assuming that this is so, still in our opinion the case is one that falls under Clause (f) of Section 529, Criminal Procedure Code. The First Class Magistrate was not empowered by law to transfer the case to the Third Class Magistrate, but he erroneously and in good faith did so transfer it. There is nothing to show that the Magistrate did not believe that he had power to transfer; and we should, in the absence of anything to the contrary, assume bona fides. Accordingly his proceedings are not to be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered. That, in our opinion, means that his order of transfer should not be treated a...
Tag this Judgment!The Mercantile Bank of India Limited Vs. A.J. Mascarenhas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom407; (1928)30BOMLR1210; 114Ind.Cas.383
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises one of those difficult questions where one of two innocent parties has to suffer for the fraud of a third, On the evidence before us it is clear that the plaintiff has been defrauded by his trusted agent one Fernandes, who has forged the endorsements on certain Improvement Trust debentures entrusted to his charge and has since absconded. The modus operandi of the fraud was as follows. Taking the old debenture No. 2483 as an example, this debenture (which was transferable by endorsement) wan originally issued on September 29, 1903, by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay in favour of the Bank of Bombay or order. Subsequently by endorsement this debenture became payable to the plaintiff or order. Fernandes at a later stage forged the signature of the plaintiff so as to make the debenture payable to himself (Fernandes) or order. Then subsequently after a transaction with the Bank of India, he endorsed the debenture in favou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »