Mumbai Court March 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.
District Deputy Collector, Panch-mahals Vs. Mansangji Mokhamsangji Nai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom306; (1928)30BOMLR930; 113Ind.Cas.169
Fawcett, J.1. This appeal relates to certain lands which were acquired under a declaration of January 8, 1921, when the area was notified as to be acquired. The main claimant was the Naik of Katwara village, in which the land lay. The Acquiring Officer in March 1923 awarded him the sum of Rs. 18-2-1 with the usual fifteen per cent, and six per cent, interest from the date of taking possession. On his application, the Acquiring Officer made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court of Ahmedabad. The Assistant Judge, who dealt with the matter, raised the award to Rs. 737-8-0 that being at the rate of Rs. 50 an acre plus the usual fifteen per cent, and the six per cent interest, The Government have appealed in the name of the District Deputy Collector of Panch Mahals.2. The award of the Acquiring Officer is based on the Naik merely being a leaseholder at the pleasure of Government, whoso lease had expired and about renewal of which nothing could be sai...
Hirachand Succaram Gandhy Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom421; (1928)30BOMLR970; 113Ind.Cas.511
Patkar, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought against the G.I.P. Railway in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur on March 10, 1925, and June 29, 1925, respectively. On July 1, 1925, the G.I.P. Railway became a state managed railway, and in September 1925, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge returned the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, on the ground that the Secretary of State for India in Council being joined as a party to the suits, he had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The plaints were presented to the District Court and numbered as Suits Nos. 4 and 11 of 1925.2. The learned District Judge raised a preliminary issue 'whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code,' and found on the issue in the affirmative and rejected the plaints.3. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been properly construed, that the suits were already instituted ...
Dinkar Raoji Sinkar Vs. Anant Ganesh Sagwekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom349; (1928)30BOMLR902; 113Ind.Cas.155
Patkar, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the present plaintiffs for redemption of the property in suit, defendants Nos. 1 to 7 being the heirs of the mortgagee, defendant No. 8 being a sub-mortgagee, and defendant No. 9 being the original mortgagor who sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in suit No. 241 of 1913 brought by the present plaintiffs against the mortgagees, On June 6, 1896, the original mortgagor, defendant No. 9, passed an agreement of sale of the property to the mortgagee, defendant No. 1's father. On February 5, 1913, another agreement of sale was passed by defendant No. 9 in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs purchased the property from the mortgagor on May 3, 1913, and sued for redemption in the previous suit No. 241 of 1913. It was urged on behalf of the defendants-mortgagees in that suit that the plaintiff No. 1 was a clerk...
The Kapadvanj Municipality Vs. Ochhavlal Damodar Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom328; (1928)30BOMLR920; 113Ind.Cas.161
Mirza, J.The facts which have given rise to these cross-appeals are briefly as follows :-1. The original plaintiff, Parikh Ochhavlal Damodar, bid for and purchased from the original defendant the Kapadvanj Municipality a certain property which was being used as a school, The plaintiff paid 25 per cent of the purchase price on March 1, 1918, and the balance on July 2, 1918. The sale was subject to the Commissioner's sanction and other legal sanctions. The final sanction was given on July 10, 1919. On March 10, 1919, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he would charge nine per cent, interest on the purchase money paid in by him until a document was passed by the defendant in respect of the property sold and possession given to the plaintiff. On March 8, 1920, the plaintiff executed a Kabulayat without prejudice to his claim for interest agreeing on a certain condition to take possession of the property before the execution of the conveyance. On March 9, 1920, the plaintiff wa...
The Government Pleader Vs. L.B. Bhopatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom338; (1928)30BOMLR934; 113Ind.Cas.519
Fawcett, J.1. The facts out of which this application arises are briefly as follows :-2. One Mr. Davare was summoned as a witness in the Court of the City Magistrate, Poona. The summons required him to attend at 11 a.m. on May 27, 1927, in order to give evidence in a criminal case. According to Mr. Davare's affidavit in these papers, he attended in obedience to the summons at about five minutes to 11, and ascended the staircase leading to the City Magistrate's Court and was stepping into it, when a policeman, who was doing duty at the head of the staircase,-apparently acting under the Magistrate's order-rudely prevented him from entering the Court. He says that he waited for about half an hour and then left, as he had business to attend to in the District Court; and that, as soon as that was over, he returned to the City Magistrate's Court at about 2-30 p.m. He then learnt that he had been called at about 12-30 p.m. by the Magistrate, who, finding him absent, had issued a warrant again...
Motilal Vs. Ujiar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR856
Carson, J.1. This action, in which the appellants are the plaintiffs, was brought for foreclosure of a mortgage dated March 6, 1914, and executed by the respondents to secure payment of a sum of Rs. 9,305, with interest at the rate of seven annas per cent, per mensem (the equivalent of 5 5/8 per cent, per annum).2. The due date for repayment under the mortgage was February 15, 1923, and on June 21, 1923, the sum of Rs. 10,165 being overdue, the appellants brought the present suit, claiming foreclosure in default of payment.3. On August 24, 1923, the suit came before the Court of the Additional District Judge of Bilaspur, who by his judgment of 1928 that date states that 'the defendants (respondents) admit the mortgage deed and entire claim, but they pray 1'or instalments.' He held that the defendants had not proved that they were unable to pay and could not get instalments, and decreed full claim and costs and allowed six months for redemption. He further ordered that if such payment w...
Ramkisan Singh Vs. Mahammad Abdul Sattar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR852
Phillimore, J.1. Their Lordships have given full consideration to the various points which have been raised in this case; some of them are points of small importance; others are, no doubt, of considerable weight, having regard to the interest of the parties; but their Lordships are prepared to deal with them shortly as, indeed, the considerations which lead them to their conclusion are not many or very involved.2. First of all, dealing with the respondents who are represented Singh by Mr. Dunne, the respondents Mathuradas and Gopaldas, they are' no doubt made respondents by the appellants, the Singhs, Abdul in their appeal, because they were parties to the suit, having been made parses to the suit by the plaintiff, and, therefore, they had to be made parties to the appeal; but they would obviously not have required to come here if it had not been for the application made in the cross-appeal or for fear of some application. As against them there is no case.3. It has been argued by the p...
Bhagwantrao Abaji MaraThe Vs. Ramanath Kaniram Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom310; (1928)30BOMLR881
Mirza, J.1. This appeal raises a question of law whether property in the hands of a Hindu reversioner is liable to satisfy a personal debt not secured on such property which a widow while 1928 enjoying a widow's estate has properly incurred in the course of management of the property. Both the lower Courts have held BAO that it is so liable.2. Respondent No. 1 sued the appellant as reversionary heir and the 2nd respondent on a money bond for Rs. 600 dated June 13, 1921, executed jointly in her life-time by one Manubai and the 2nd respondent who was her brother. The bond carried interest at twelve per cent which rate was to be increased to eighteen per cent if the debt was not paid within a specified period. The bond did not recite that the widow was borrowing the money for a legal necessity or in course of conducting a trade or business of her deceased husband. It was proved by evidence that out of the moneys she borrowed Manubai had spent Rs. 425 for the benefit of the estate. From th...
Jamnadas Adukia Vs. Chetandas Daga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom487; (1928)30BOMLR1317
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Taraporewala dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 15,810 and interest in respect of certain outstanding forward transactions in wheat and linseed, and allowing the counter-claim of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 1883 and interest. These outstanding transactions consisted of 1150 tons of wheat and 175 tons of linseed for September 1924 delivery, and 50 tons of linseed for May 1925 delivery. All these transaction were closed by the plaintiffs on July 30, 1924, and tiny justify the closing before the due date on the ground that the defendants had failed to comply with an alleged custom by which the plaintiffs were entitled to Call for a 'shroff's kabala,' and in default to close the transactions at the then market rate. It is common ground that the case solely depends on the existence of this alleged custom. Chetandas The market was in favour of the plaintiffs on July 30, 1924, but against them at the due ...
Emperor Vs. Narayan Dhaku Bhil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom240; (1928)30BOMLR620
Fawcett, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with three cases, where an accused person was charged with offences under as. 380, 457 and 411, Indian Penal Code, which a Second Class Magistrate sent up to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 349 Criminal Procedure Code. Under that section the Magistrate who sends up a case is merely empowered to record his opinion that the accused is guilty, and that he ought to receive a punishment different in kind from, or more severe than, that which such Magistrate is empowered to inflict. In the present cases the Magistrate went a little further, and said that he convicted the accused in each of the three cases under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. In Queen-Empress v. Mahadu (1888) C C. 387 it was held in a similar case that the conviction recorded by the Second Class Magistrate was illegal; and the conviction was reversed and the Second Class Magistrate was directed, after recording his opinion, to proceed according to law. The Distri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »