Mumbai Court September 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.
Punjabai Bhilasa Vs. Bhagvandas Kisandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR88; 117Ind.Cas.518
Mirza, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether on the facts found the appellant can maintain her claim under the provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court of first instance found in favour of that plea and decreed the claim. The appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit with costs in both Courts.2. The appellant is the widow and legal representative of one Bhilasa. The respondent obtained a money decree against Bhilasa in suit No. 192 of ltd 2 and sought after his death by Darkhast No. 1076 of 1918 to execute the decree against his estate. While the darkhat was pending the appellant purported to sell certain lands belonging to the estate to one Dhanraj Shivlal for Rs. 4,200. The amount due to the respondent was then about Rs 4,000, The respondent owed a sum of Rs. 500 to the panch of the Dasalat Gujarati community of which he was a member. Dhanraj Shivlal through the intervention of certain panchas of that community purported to c...
Krishnarao Bhaskar Phadke Vs. Lakshman Ramchandra Gavli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1627; 118Ind.Cas.692
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. We directed this reference under Order XLVI of the Civil Procedure Code by Mr. Padki, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Ratnagiri, to be set down before us for directions. He has referred the case to us under Order XLVI, Rule 1. It is a case involving only Rs. 300 and is being tried by him in the exercise of Small Cause Court powers. Although then there may be no right of appeal, there would be a right in revision to any disappointed litigant supposing there was a substantial point of law to be decided. The learned Judge, however, instead of deciding the matter between the parties, has referred it to us on certain points of law, which, he says, arise in the case. Those points are said to arise under the Indian Limitation Act and to be of such a nature as to have caused disagreement between various High Courts in India. Those several decisions are accordingly set out in the reference, but in paragraph 9 the learned Judge says:-' It seems to me tha...
The Raneegunge Coal Association Ltd. Vs. the Tata Iron and Steel Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR21; 117Ind.Cas.417
Kemp, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Blackwell dismissing, on March 5, 1928, a summons taken out by the defendants for stay of the suit under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899.2. The plaintiffs sue the defendants for breach of an agreement, Association dated January 16, 1919, for the sale by the defendants to the plaintiffs of the output of coal raised by the defendants from certain seams Nos. 12, 13 and 15 in the defendants collieries at Kustore and Alkusa which, we were informed during the arguments, are situated some ten hours by rail from Calcutta. It is unnecessary to refer to the agreement in detail. It is sufficient to state that the plaintiffs contend that under the agreement the defendants were bound to maintain the output of the particular seams up to 15,000 tons and deliver to them the output for that amount and over up to 25,000 tons. The plaintiffs do not say in the plaint that the defendants dispute this construction, but on the a...
Krishna Chinnoo and Sons Vs. Matubhai Kasanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR35; 117Ind.Cas.440
Kemp, J.1. This is an appeal by certain opposing creditors against the order of Mr. Justice Daver sitting in Insolvency allowing the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 2 (whom I shall call the claimants) in the insolvency of Evans. The material facts are as follows;-2. Evans and on Kaderbhoy carried on business as joint building contractors and as such entered into an indenture of lease for 999 years, dated July 26 1920, with J.R. patel and B.S. Shroff, of certain land situated at Tardeo in Bombay at a monthly rent of Rs. 694-7-2 and subject to certain conditions one of which was that the lessees should build upon the land buildings to the value of Rs. 50,000 within 1 1/2 year from July 26, 1920. The lessees (sic) the deed of surrender for the Official Assignee's inspection. The Official Assignee took inspection of the deed on March 10, 1927. On April 8, 1927, the Official Assignee wrote asking for a reply to his letter of February 24, 1927. It is not clear what he meant by this letter as h...
Emperor Vs. Hiru Satua Desla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1570; 113Ind.Cas.510
Mirza, J.1. The accused has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Shahapur of an offence under Section 176, Indian Penal Code, and released after admonition as contemplated under Section 562(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is the head of a joint family. A daughter-in-law of his who resided with him in the family-house committed suicide by throwing herself into a well situated in the compound of the house. Under Section 45(1), Criminal Procedure Code, every owner or occupier of land has forthwith to communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer in charge of the nearest police-station, whichever is the nearer, any information which he may possess respecting the occurrence of any sudden or unnatural death. The accused was convicted because he failed to give such information regarding the unnatural death of his daughter-in-law.2. The accused must be regarded as the owner of the house and not the owner of the land within the meaning of Section 45 of the C...
ichhalal Jagmohanas Vs. Anjibai Zujya Duma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1602; 114Ind.Cas.272
Mirza, J.1. The appellants brought this suit to eject the respondent from the tenancy of certain lands belonging to the appellants, and also claimed Rs. 20 for rent. The notice terminating the tenancy was dated June 22, 1921, and inter alia stated that the year of cultivation would terminate in the month of Ash win, i. e,, October 31, and that possession of the property along with Rs, 20 for rent should be then given. The first Court found in favour of the appellants, and granted them a decree in ejectment as well as a decree for Rs. 20 for rent, The appellate Court held that the appellants had failed to prove that the yearly tenancy was terminable on October 31, in each year The rent note of 1897, which was adduced in evidence, showed that the tenancy began in July 1897, and ended in May 1898. There was no evidence to show that there was any fresh contract between the parties or their predecessors-in-title that the year of tenancy should end in Ashwin or October, The lower Court, rely...
Sir Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Sowkabai Pandharinath Rajapurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR7; 117Ind.Cas.424
Fawcett, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a lady in Bombay, by name Sowkabai, against the Ex-Maharaja of the State of Indore. The plaint certainly makes serious allegations against the defendant. It alleges, in brief, that she and her daughter were kept mistresses of a cousin of the defendant and were decoyed from Bombay to Indore under the orders of the defendant in 1915. The defendant is there alleged to have made an indecent proposal to the plaintiff and her daughter that the latter should stay with the defendant as his mistress. Upon their refusal, it is alleged, they were cruelly treated and imprisoned in a fort near Indore, where they were kept in confinement until 1926, i. e., for a period of about eleven years. Upon a petition to the Viceroy, they were, it is said, released and they returned to Bombay on April 30 of that year. The plaintiff further alleges that after their seizure the defendant by his agents took forcible possession of the house in which the pla...
Rustomji Ardeshir Cooper Vs. Madhavji Damodar Thackersey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1928
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1436
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Davar of July 24, 1928, refusing to set aside an adjudication order against the appellant which had been made ex parte on July 19, 1928, There is also a companion notice of motion by the appellant of August 25, 1928, asking for all the proceedings to be stayed with liberty to the appellant to manage his property, to recover outstandings and rents, to incur necessary expenses in respect of his immoveable properties, and to file, prosecute and defend suite in his name as if he had not been adjudged an insolvent, and for such other order as to this Court may seem fit.2. Shortly stated, the position is this : The appellant Mr. Cooper, a Parsi, and the respondents Messrs. Madhavji Damodar Thackersey andothers Hindus, are carrying on a bitter litigation connected with certain landed property in Bombay, where they are adjoining owners. In the Court of first instance the appellant succeeded. In the Court of Appe...
Mulji Narotam Vs. Hiralal Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1067; 121Ind.Cas.439
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 against the judgment of the learned Joint First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia, finding that the plaintiff as the adopted son of one Ramchandra was entitled inter alia to one half share in the suit lands, and directing a partition on that basis, and other consequential relief.2. To understand the position, one must look at the pedigree given in the learned Judge's judgment, but for the purpose of my judgment, it must be supplemented by inserting the dates of the deaths of certain material persons. It is common ground that with regard to the suit lands, they belonged to one Sambhubhat. His widow was Ratanbai who died in 1859. This property, unlike certain other property, was not joint ancestral property, but passed on Ratanbai's death by way of collateral descent to the descendants of Ambaram the brother of Sambhubhat. It may be taken also as admitted or proved that Ambaram's two sons, namely, Dullabhram and Jad...
Baslingava Revansiddappa Vs. Chinnava Karibassappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1604; 114Ind.Cas.369
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are sisters. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the house in suit alleging that it belonged to her father Shivlingappa, who sold it to her on December 15, 1920, for Rs. 1,000 and delivered possession. During her absence from the village she was dispossessed by the defendants, her sisters. The defendant No. 3 admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that the transaction was hollow and colourable and without consideration, and denied plaintiff's possession. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Muddebihal, held that the purchase was proved, but no consideration was paid. He held that it was not proved that the transfer was colourable and without consideration, and he passed a conditional decree in the following terms : 'Plaintiff should take possession of the entire house described in plaint if within three months from the date hereof she pays defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Rs. 500. In default of such a payment her...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »