Mumbai Court July 1928 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Vazirally
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1426
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused is tried on a charge under Section 291 A (second part) of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a proposal for the drawing of a lottery. The accused, who is the proprietor of the British Cigarette and Tobacco Co., published 22,000 handbills advertising a prize of Rs. 5 which could automatically be obtained by purchasers of Park Drive Cigarettes. Ex. B is one of such handbills. It appears that ten currency notes of Rs. 5 each were sent to the manufacturers of Park Drive Cigarettes at Belfast, who pat in a note of Rs. 5 in each of ten packets of cigarettes. The ten packets were mixed with other packets and subsequently packed in 50 cases and dispatched to the accused who is the sole agent for the cigarettes in India, The question is whether the whole scheme is a lottery.2. In Taylor v. Smetten (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 207 Hawkins J., accepting the definition of lottery as a distribution of prizes by lot or chance, held that selling of packets of good tea at a...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhlal Rambakas Pardeshi Vs. Jetha Opajishet Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom522; (1928)30BOMLR1455
Fawcett Ag. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover Rs. 5,368-13-6 as due on a mortgage passed by the defendants. The mortgage is not disputed; nor is the claim, except in regard to the compound interest fixed by the bond being excessive and the bond therefore unconscionable, and in regard to the liability of the defendants to pay the interest claimed for the period prior to February 1, 1923. The Subordinate Judge held that the agreement to pay compound interest at twelve annas per cent, per month was not unconscionable. It is to be noted that the parties are both traders and money lenders, and there was nothing which showed that there was anything in the nature of undue influence or pressure put upon the defendants when they agreed to pay such compound interest. In my opinion nothing has been shown that would justify our differing from the lower Court's view on this point.2. Therefore, there remains only the question about interest prior to February 1, 1923. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pochalal Ranchhod Vs. Umedram Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom476; (1928)30BOMLR1284
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs, who carry on the business of a commission-agency, sued the three defendants to recover the sum of Rs. 3,370-14-0 as balance due on a current account between the parties, The plaintiffs valued the claim at this sum of Ks. 8,370-14-0 and paid Court-fee thereon. The defendants, among their objections, pleaded that the suit was time-barred. The Subordinate Judge decided against this contention and passed a preliminary decree for accounts against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, He held that defendant No. 3 was not liable. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to the District Court of Ahmedabad, and among the grounds of appeal were (1) that necessary parties had not been joined and the lower Court ought to have dismissed the suit on that account, and (2) that the lower Court erred in holding that the suit would be in time, if it was brought within three years of the last item in the accounts. Before the Assistant Judge a contention was raised that the claim in appeal had no...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Vasudeo Venkatesh Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1494
Fawcett Ag. C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are fully stated in the judgment of the Court below, and need not be repeated, except that it should be mentioned that the quantities of matches, which are alleged to have been unjustifably seized, were in the shops of the plaintiffs at Ankola, which is a sea-port, a long way from the frontier of the Portuguese territory, and which is not one of the stations established under the Bombay Land Customs Act (XXIX of 1857). The Superintendent of Salt Revenue, Goa Frontier and Kanara, passed an order confiscating these matches, and the main questions are : (1) whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 21 of that Act because there had been a proper adjudication by the special tribunal set up in that Act for adjudicating upon confiscations, etc., and (2) whether, if the suit is not barred, the order of confiscation was ultra vires, not being authorised by the Act.2. The questions at issue turn mainly upon the proper ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Amratlal Amarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1422
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the accused was convicted under Sections 471 and 249 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act for not complying with the requisition for providing a sufficient number of water-closets or latrines or privies and urinals for persons employed as workmen or labourers in his premises.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that there was already sufficient privy accommodation in premises No. 149 B, that godown in No. 149 B, which was contiguous to the shop building, was comprised in the premises No. 149 B, therefore, the case fell under Section 248 and not under Section 249 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and as there was no sanction by the Standing Committee as provided by Section 248, the notice was ultra vires and illegal.3. Section 247 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act refers to buildings intended for human habitation, or at or in which labourers or workmen are to be employed, Sections 248 and 249 refer to premises. The words 'premises' and 'buildings' hav...
Tag this Judgment!BhaudIn Baba Shaikasan Vs. Ibrahim Allisaheb Shaikasan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom526; (1928)30BOMLR1405
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. It is argued that the joinder of defendant No. 2 more than a year after the suit was brought, makes the decree against him under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act one that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the lower Court to pass. This is based on Section 22 of the Indian Limitation Act; it is said the suit must be deemed to have been instituted as against him when he was made a party and that would be beyond the six months prescribed for a suit under a 9 of the Specific Relief Act by Article 3 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. The Subordinate Judge has found that defendant No. 2 was not a necessary party; that the dispossession was by defendant No. 1 who is defendant No. 2's son; and that defendant No. 2 was merely joined for the purpose of safeguarding his own interest upon the application, Exhibit 33. Accordingly, under the principle followed by this Court in Guruvayya v. Dattatraya I.L.R (1903) Bom. 11: 5 Bom. L.R. 618 and similar cases...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Ursula Vs. Pana Navalaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom534(1); (1928)30BOMLR1447; 114Ind.Cas.861
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the respondent firm obtained a decree for Rs. 184-8-0 against the estate of the deceased Niklav Santago Pereira in Small Cause Suit No. 324 of 1921, In execution of that decree, the respondents-judgment creditors attached the property alleged to belong to Niklav. The appellants, the heirs of Niklav's brother Sebastian, claimed in execution that the property was not liable to attachment in execution of the decree against Niklav on the ground that the property did not belong to Niklav but belonged to Sebastian. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application and raised the attachment holding that the property was not liable to attachment and sale as belonging to Niklav. The respondents-judgment creditors appealed to the District Court of Thane. The learned District Judge held that the property under attachment belonged to Niklav, and, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court, The heirs of Sebastian have filed this second appeal,2. It is urged on ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Volkart Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1578
Carson, J.1. By an indenture of lease executed on June 6, 1821, and made between the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, of the one part, and one Francis Schuler of the other part, the said United Company demised a piece of land lying between the town of Cochin and the river in the province of Malabar, containing 253,700 square feet (acres 4. 10), unto the said Francis Schuler from the date thereof for the term of ninety-nine years, at the yearly rent of Pagodas 6 F. 27 C. 25. Amongst other covenants the lease contained one in the following terms:-That he the said Francis Schuler, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns fulfilling the covenants and agreements hereinbefore contained and on his part to be performed and yielding and paying at the end and expiration of the aforesaid term of ninety nine years into the said United Company, their successors or assigns, the full and just sum of 100 pagodas current money of Fort St. George, then this leas...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Nayana Patil Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom534; (1928)30BOMLR1404
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with a point not material to the report continued :] The second point in this case is whether the order is ultra vires because it revises what was settled in 1887 as to the amount of rent payable under Section 9(2) of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act. That was a point that was raised by the plaintiff's before the Collector, as is shown by Exhibit 55. He gave reasons for the view that, although Section 9(2) of Bom. Act III of 1874 says that the Collector's order as to what is the full rent shall be final, that does not mean that the Collector cannot subsequently alter the amount of rent, if circumstances of the kind mentioned in this section, such as a rise or fall in the comparative rents paid by tenants of land of similar description in the same locality, should justify this being done. This point has been considered by the District Judge and he has agreed with the Collector. I also take the same view. I think what is meant i...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Tarachand Javeri Vs. Jethalal Motilal Kumbhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1588; 114Ind.Cas.262
Patkar, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and from collecting rent from the tenants in occupation of the property, and for recovering the rent due in respect of the half share of the property. It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of the case. It is sufficient for the purpose of this appeal to state the necessary facts.2. Plaintiff No. 2 was entitled as a purchaser to a moiety of the property belonging to one Pitambar and was entitled as a mortgagee with respect to the other moiety belonging to Pitambar's nephew, the defendant Jetha. The defendant sought to disturb the possession of the plaintiff as a purchaser of the moiety and as a mortgagee of the remaining moiety. Plaintiff No, 2 acquired the rights as purchaser with respect to Pitambar's moiety on July 30,1918, and as a mortgagee with regard to the other moiety on January 24, 1916. Plaintiff No. 2 established his rig...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »