Mumbai Court August 1928 Judgments
Gangadhar Tukaram Akul Vs. Rachappa Nagappa Kinage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR453
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal requires determination on a very unusual state of facts. The suit was brought by the plaintiff as the adopted son of Nagappa, who died in 1894, to recover the suit property which was alienated by Nagiappa'a widow Nagawa in 1906 in favour of the defendants. Nagawa purported to adopt the plaintiff on June 27, 1910, but it is clear, although she has denied it, that she had formed an illicit intercourse with one Sharnappa after, if not before, the death of her husband Nagappa and that there were two or more children born of that union. The contention of' the defendants is that Nagawa in fact married Sharnappa by Udki marriage in 1907. They further contend that the adoption of the plaintiff in June 1910 never took place or alternatively it was invalid because Nagawa had remarried, and in any event they claim that they were entitled to be allowed the value of certain improvements made by them in 1918.2. Now, as regards the question whether Nagawa coul...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Motising Vs. Durgabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1615; 114Ind.Cas.379
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the minor defendant No. 1, Babu Motising alias Baliram Dagdusing, against the decision of the learned trial Judge in favour of the plaintiff Durgabai, the widow of one Dagdusing, to the effect that the deceased Dagdueing was governed by the Benares school of Hindu law at the date of his death, and that accordingly it was necessary for the validity of any adoption by his widow that she should have been given express authority by the deceased, and that on the facts of this particular case no express authority was proved. Before the learned Judge it was also contested whether the adoption had been made at- all, but that point was found in favour of the minor, and no contest arises as to that before us,2. We are left, therefore, with two main points : (1) Did the deceased ever expressly authorise his widow to adopt the minor? (2) If not, was the deceased governed by the Benares school as being the school of Hindu law governing his community...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jaffer Cassam Moosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1442
Mirza, J.1. The applicant has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, Bombay, under Section 248, Sub-section (1), of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.2. The applicant is the estate manager of His Highness the Agakhan, and works under a power of attorney from his master. The Bombay Municipality served him with a notice to provide certain water-closet accommodation in respect of certain premises belonging to His Highness the Aga Khan and known as Adelphi Chambers at Clare Road, Byculla. About the same time, it appears, the Bombay Municipality served a similar notice upon one Nowroji Bhathena who is said to have been at the time the lessee of those premises. Default having been made to comply with the notice, the Bombay Municipality, through the Municipal Commissioner, launched a prosecution against both the applicant and Nowroji Bhathena, After several adjournments, the Municipal Commissioner withdrew the case against Nowroji Bhat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Standard Aluminium and Brass Works Ld.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1509; 114Ind.Cas.849
K. Kemp, J.1. This is a petition by a shareholder for winding up the Standard Aluminium and Brass Works, Limited. The company was registered in February 1920 with an authorised capital of 25 lacs divided into 25,000 shares of Rs. 100 each, Rs. 55 being called up on each share, the total amount of the paid-up capital, including sums received on certain forfeited shares reissued, being just over rupees seven lacs. The petitioner is the registered holder of 5 shares and is supported by certain other shareholders alleged to hold about 1600 shares. It has since appeared, however, that certain of these persons had their shares forfeited five or six years ago, and are no longer on the register of the company, a fact which reduces the number of the shares held by the supporters of the petition to about 600. The petition is opposed by the company and by shareholders to the extent of about 6,500 shares.2. The ground on which the petition is presented is that it is just and equitable within the m...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Gulabchand Marwadi Vs. Jigan Lad Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1583; 114Ind.Cas.269
Patkar, J.1. The land in suit originally belonged to plaintiff No. 1's father Gulabehand who agreed to sell it to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 1,000 under an agreement, Exhibit 32, dated May 18, 1908, by which defendants Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to pay the purchase money in ten instalments of Rs. 100 each, and also agreed that if any two instalments remained unpaid the amount paid would not be refunded and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 would lose the right to have the lands sold to them, and that if the instalments were paid as agreed, plaintiff No. l's father was to execute a sale-deed in respect of the lands at the time of the last instalment. On the same day, a rent-note was passed in favour of plaintiff No. 1's father by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for two years reserving the rent of Rs. 99. The due dates of payment of rent coincided with the dates on which defendants Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to pay the instalments. The defendants failed to pay the rent, and the plaintiff No. 1's father applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamsey Khetsey Vs. Balkrishna Pandurang Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR984
Fawcett, J.1. The question that has been argued before me is whether the defendant firm can set up the contention that all or any of its partners are agriculturists, as defined in the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and that therefore the suit cannot be tried by this Court but must be brought in a Court having jurisdiction at the place where the partners reside in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. Mr. Lalji's contention is that a firm is only a compendious mode of expressing the partners of which that firm is composed, and that a partner can therefore avail himself of the provisions of this Act relating to agriculturists. It is an important question because if it is held that such a contention may be set up, there will often be considerable difficulties in the way of suing parties who carry on business in Bombay. I quite agree that ordinarily a firm does, in law, only mean the partners of which it is composed of, but I do not ...
Tag this Judgment!Chindha Rupla Patil Vs. Chhaganlal Shivlal Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom545; (1928)30BOMLR1488
Patkar, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is as to the validity of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs, Exhibit 39, dated June 8, 1920, for Rs. 8,000. The property originally belonged to one Bhabhutsing. On April 8, 1920, one Bhila, brother of the defendant, brought suit No. 261 of 1920 and attached before judgment the property in suit on April 23, 1920, On April 19, 1920, the plaintiffs brought a suit, No. 287 of 1920, and attached the property before judgment on May 28, 1920. On April 22, 1920, the defendant brought suit No. 294. of 1920, and got the property attached before judgment on June 19, 1920.2. The sale.deed in favolir of the plaintiffs for Rs. 8,000 was passed for satisfaction of the claim in their own suit and the claim of the defendant's brother in suit No. 261 of 1920. Those claims were satisfied, and suit No. 287 of 1920 brought by the present plaintiff's was dismissed for want of prosecution on June 15, 1920, and the suit of the defendant's brother...
Tag this Judgment!Chhipa Allarakha Isakji Vs. Bai Sona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1610; 114Ind.Cas.372
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is of rather a curious nature. Both parties were represented by pleaders before the Commissioner, and the order appealed from is quite simple, viz. 'By cogent Rs. 2,250 to be deposited with Commissioner on or before January 3, 1928. No order as to costs.' The expression' deposited 'there clearly refers to Section 8 of the Act, which provides that 'compensation payable in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death shall be deposited with the Commissioner,' and then the sum so deposited is to be dealt with in certain ways. So, too, in the diary, which was kept by the Commissioner under the rules, after recording that certain issues had been raised and two witnesses heard, the entry runs as follows:-' At this stage parties agree that the opposite party should deposit Rs. 2,250 on or before January 3, 1928. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.'2. Now the first point that arises ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector Vs. Damodardas Tribhuvandas Bhanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1622
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. I now turn to the four other appeals, namely, Nos. 38, 39, 195 and 233 which are all by Government on the question of costs. Now here there has been no appeal by any of the claimant-landowners. Therefore, we must take it that the decision of the learned Judge upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of these particular pieces of land was correct. The award so made was at the uniform rate, as far as these lands are concerned, of Rs. 1,250 per acre. But as regards costs the learned Judge stated as follows in paragraph 28 of his judgment:-I, therefore, dismiss all the claims, but without costs. The uncertainty of market created by the boom and its aftermath has been greatly responsible for the exaggerated demands. And having regard to that fact, I think this is not a fit) case where I should saddle the owners with Government costs under Section 27.2. Now, what jurisdiction are we exercising in the matter of costs in these land acquisition...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector Vs. Damodardas Tribhuvandas Bhanji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.397
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. I now turn to the four other appeals, namaly, Nos. 38, 39, 195 and 233 which are all by Government on the question of Costs. Nowhere there has been no appeal by any of the claimant-landowners. Therefore, we must take it that the decision of the learned Judge upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of these particular pieces of land was correct. The award so made was at the uniform rate, as far as these lands are concerned, of Rs. 1,250 per acre. But as regards costs the learned Judge staled as follows in para. 28 of his judgment:I, therefore, dismiss all the claims, but without costs. The uncertainty of market created by the boom and its aftermath has been greatly responsible for the exaggerated demands. And having regard to that fact, I think this is not a fit case where I should saddle the owners with Government Costs under Section 27.2. Now, what jurisdiction are we exercising in the matter of costs in these land acquisition proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »