Mumbai Court July 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.
In Re: Khimchand Narottam Bhavsar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom493; (1928)30BOMLR1273
Patkar, J.1. The complainant filed two informations in the Court of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, charging opponent No. 1, the receiver appointed by the High Court in a suit on the Original Side, and other persons. The complainant applied to the Chamber Judge, for sanction to prosecute the receiver, It is said that Mirza J. returned the application orally giving his opinion that the sanction asked for was not necessary. On August 30, 1927, the Magistrate refused to entertain the complaints on the ground that accused No. 1 was the receiver (appointed by the High Court) of Motishaw's Wadi including the stable in question and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were alleged to have only acted under the orders of accused No. 1, the receiver, and relying on the decision in the case of Santok Chand v. Emperor I.L.R (1918) Cal. 432 held that no action could be taken in this matter till the complainant first obtained the leave of the High Court for prosecuting the receiver.2. It is urged o...
Khimchand Narottam Bhavsar Complainant Vs. Devkaran Mulji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.387
Patkar, J.1. The complainant filed two informations in the Court of the learned Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, charging opponent No. 1, the Receiver appointed by the High Court in a suit on the Original Side, and other persons. The complainant applied to the Chamber Judge, Mirza, J., for sanction to prosecute the Receiver. It is said that Mirza, J., returned the application orally giving his opinion that the sanction asked for was not necessary. On August 30, 1927, the Magistrate refused to entertain the complaints on the ground that accused No.1 was the Receiver (appointed by the High Court) of Motishaw's Wadi including the stable in question and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were alleged to have only acted under the order of accused No. 1, the Receiver, and relying on the decision in the case of Santok Chand v. Sugan Chand 46 Ind. Cas. 836 held that no action could be taken in this matter till the complainant first obtained the leave of the High Court for prosecuting the Receiver.2. I...
H.H. Sir Sayaji Rao, Gaekwar of Baroda Vs. Madhavrao Raghunathrao Dhav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1463
Fawcett Ag. C.J.1. In this suit against the Gaikwar of Baroda, the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of certain lands situate in the village Davdi, in the Poona District, to which he claims to be entitled as the adopted son of one Raghunathrao, who died in February 1902. There is now no dispute that the plaintiff was in fact validly adopted by Raghunathrao'a widow Chandrabai in October 1905. The main question in dispute is whether these lauds vested in the plaintiff at his adoption, or, as the Gaikwar of Baroda alleges, had been validly resumed by him prior to the plaintiff's adoption. Then there is a subsidiary issue as to whether the plaintiff's suit is not in any case time-barred.2. The main facts may be briefly stated, The village of Davdi was in the year 1728 A.D. conferred by Shahu Maharaj, the Raja of Satara, upon the then Gaikwar, Pilaji, under a Sanad which is Exhibit 1.80. The lands in suit are proved by evidence in this case to have been in the enjoyment of the Gaikwar o...
His Highness Sir Sayajirao, Gaekwar of Baroda Vs. Madhavrao Raghunath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.369
Charles Fawcett, Acting, C.J.1. In this suit against the Gaikwar of Baroda, the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of certain lands situate in the village Davdi, in the Poona District, to which he claims to be entitled as the adopted son of one Raghunathrao, who died in February 1902. There is now no dispute that the plaintiff was in fact validly adopted by Raghunathrao's widow Chandrabai in October 1902. The main question in dispute is whether these lands vested in the plaintiff at his adoption, or, as the Gaikwar of Baroda alleges, had been validly resumed by him prior to the plaintiff's adoption. Then there is a subsidiary issue as to whether the plaintiff's suit is not in any case time-barred.2. The main facts may be briefly stated. The village of Davdi was in the year 1728 A.D. conferred by Shahu Maharaj, the Raja of Satara, upon the then Gaikwar, Pilaji, under a sanad which is Ex. 180. The lands in suit are proved by evidence in this case to have been in the enjoyment of the G...
In Re: Maneklal Manilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom553; (1928)30BOMLR1396
Patkar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Collector of Ahmedabad invoking our revisional powers under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act with reference to the decision of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, before whom two documents, Exs. 416 and 417, were produced. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion with regard to Ex. 416 that it was an agreement, and required a stamp of eight annas plus Rs. 5 as penalty. The Collector of Ahmedabad is of opinion that the document ia an agreement as to the first part and a release as to the second part, and therefore required a stamp of eight annas with regard to the first part and Rs. 5 on the second part, Rs. 10-8-0 in all plus penalty of Rs. 105. This position is not contested on behalf of the defendants. We, therefore, accept the view of the Collector, and hold that the document, Ex. 416, is in part an agreement, and in part a release, and requires a stamp of eight annas for the first part and Rs. 5 on the second part.2...
Nandlal Pannalal Marwadi Vs. Kisanlal Chaturbhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom548; (1928)30BOMLR1391
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit to recover from the defendant Rs. 2,000 on taking accounts in respect of the sale of 162 bales of cotton sent by the plaintiff to the defendant for disposal between April 18, 1920, and April 5, 1921. The plaintiff resides at Warangaon in the Bhusawal Taluka and sent the goods from Warangaon to Bombay to the defendant who was his Pakka Adatya. There was no allegation in the plaint that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bhusawal Court. The allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiff asked the defendant to settle the accounts with the plaintiff, and the defendant refused to send the statement of accounts to the plaintiff at Warangaon, and therefore the cause of action arose at Warangaon within the jurisdiction of the Bhusawal Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Bhusawal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. An appeal was ...
Harilal Dalsukhram Sahiba Vs. Mulchand Asharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom427; (1928)30BOMLR1149; 113Ind.Cas.27
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit, against the defendant for a refund of Rs. 19,000, the amount of consideration that he paid for the purchase of a field bearing Survey Nos. 108-1 and 108-2 near Ahmedabad, with interest thereon. This purchase was made on September 5, 1919, under a registered conveyance, and he had been duly placed in possession. But in a suit of 1920 brought by cue Somnath Motilal for redemption of a mortgage on No. 108-2, Somnath obtained a decree on the ground that the defendant's vendors had no right of ownership such as the defendant purported to pass on to the plaintiff, but were only in the position of sub-mortgagees. This No. 108-2 had become vested in three daughters of one Narsi, who mortgaged it in 1889 for Rs. 900. The plaintiff's title to No. 108-2 thus became defective. He alleged that he had bought the land in order to build on it and that he was entitled to a rescission of the transfer and for a refund of the amount...
Gauri Nath Kakaji Vs. Gaya Kuar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1
Salvesen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit at the instance of the surviving widow of Laiq Singh, who was the owner of certain villages situate in the District of Hardoi. The plaintiff in that suit, who is the respondent here, prayed for decree for possession of the villages in question at that time in possession of the appellant under mortgages in favour of his author (?). The Subordinate Judge of Hardoi granted decree in the respondent's favour, but only on the footing that in so far as the mortgages which had been granted by the senior widow were justified by necessity, she was bound as a condition of obtaining possession to pay the amount due to the mortgagees. From his judgment an appeal was taken to the Chief Court of Oudh which by decree dated March 4, 1926, reversed the judgment and decree d dated April 29, 1924, of the Subordinate Judge and held that the respondent was entitled to an unconditional decree for possession of the villages. From this decree the present appeal h...
Manekji Rustomji Bharucha Vs. Nanabhai Cursetji Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR969
Rangnekar, J.1. Sir Shapurji Bharucha died at Bombay on or about June 23, 1920, leaving his last will dated June 21, 1919, and two codicils thereto which are not material to the questions which I have to decide on this summons. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 14 are the executors and trustees of the will.2. Clause 14 of the will provides as follows :-I direct my Executors to stand possessed of investments to be selected by them of the market value on the day of my death of Ea. 17 lakhs upon trust to pay the income thereof from time to time as the same accrues duo to my sister Bai Dinbai the widow of Manekji Rusbomji Bennet for her life.3. Clause 15 of the will runa as follows :-After the death of the said Bai Dinbai my Executors shall divide and pay the said sum of Rs. 17 lakhs as follows namely : -(a) 4 Lakhs bo Bai Putlibai the daughter of the said Dinbai absolutely,(b) 4 Lakhs to Bai Bachubai the daughter of the said Bai Dinbai absolutely.(c) 4 Lakhs to Bai Cooverbai the daughter of...
Emperor Vs. Mohanlal Aditram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1253; 113Ind.Cas.617
Mirza, J.1. The Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, has committed the accused to take his trial before this Court on two charges, The first charge is under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is charged under that head with having on April 3, 1928, at Bombay, kidnapped a girl Manibai with intent that she may be forced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she would be forced to illicit intercourse. The second charge is under Sections 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, It runs as follows:-That you did aid and abet one Manilai (at large) who oommitted rape on April 4, 1928, on the girl Manibai at Ahmedabad and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the High Court.2. The offence of rape is alleged to have been committed at Ahmedabad and the accused is alleged to have abetted that offence by his presence and would therefore be liable to the same degree of punishmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »