Mumbai Court January 1929 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.
Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass Vs. E.D. Sassoon and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR741
Salvesen, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated November 8, 1926, which on appeal confirmed an order passed by the said High Court in its original jurisdiction on April 19, 1926, and dismissed the appellants' application to have an award set aside and taken off the file.2. The material facts which are not in dispute have been so fully set forth in the judgment now under review that the barest summary is all that is required to raise the two questions of law on which their Lordships have to decide. Under various contracts between September 16, 1913, and March 2, 1914, the appellants sold to the respondents certain quantities of jute. The contracts were all in a form approved by the Calcutta Baled Jute Trade Association and contained an arbitration clause such as is usual in mercantile contracts at the present day. The reference is in the widest form and submits to arbitration 'any disputes arising out of or in any way relati...
Rayegavda Hanmantraya Vs. Ramlingappa Shidgavdappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR647
Baker, J.1. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff as purchaser of the rights of three out of the five reversioners of Amagowda sued to recover possession of his three-filths share by partition from defendant No. 6 who was an alienee from Mahalingawa, the widow of Amagowda, and defendants Nos. 5 and 7 who are the reversioners as regards the remaining two-fifths share were added. The defendant No. 6 pleaded legal necessity for the sale. That was found against him. It was also found that he and not defendants Nos. 5 and 7 were in possession of the plaint property, and the first Court passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for possession by partition of his three-fifths share, Defendants Nos. 5 and 7 asked in their written statement that they might be given their two-thirds share in the property. It was held their share was two-fifths, but their claim was rejected on the ground that it was preferred for the first time more than twelve years from the death of the widow Mahalingawa, a...
Atmaram Bhagwant Ghadgay Vs. the Collector of Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR728
Blanesburgh, J.1. In 1919 the Government of India acquired, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, for the purposes of the extension of the Hump Yard of the Great Indian Peninsular Railway at Nagpur, an area of 258 acres, then under cultivation and within the holdings of twenty-five different owners. The appellant was one of these owners, claiming in respect of thirty-four acres of the land so acquired. His holding consisted of a main plot, with two separate patches adjacent thereto, so small however, that, as has throughout been agreed, these patches can have no effect upon the considerations in accordance with which the value of the appellant's whole area must be determined. The Collector acting under Section 11 of the Act, and treating the land as agricultural land only, awarded compensation to the appellant at a flat rate of Rs. 60 per acre. Indeed, he awarded the same flat rate, in respect of their holdings, to all the twenty-five owners of the 258 acres. And,...
Sir Rameshwar Singh Vs. Bajit Lal Pathak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR721
Blanesburgh, J.1. The question at issue in this suit is as to the ownership of some forty-four bighas eight kathas of agricultural land lying within the ambit of the mauza of Bela Pemo in the zemindari of the Maharajah of Darbhangha. The lands constitute the bulk of a single well-defined block of three jotes having a total area described throughout the proceedings as of fifty nine bighas and eight kathas, The remaining fifteen bigtias four kathas occupy a central position in the block, being Singh surrounded by the forty-four bighas. The whole area has been laimed by Bajit Lal Pathak, the first respondent. But it is his Claim to the forty-four bighas which is alone in question in this Lord suit. His claim to the fifteen bighas has been dealt with in a separate suit to which, with its result, reference will later on be made.2. The history of the lands is voluminous; but as it has been detailed with much care and precision in the judgments below, it need not be again elaborated here.3. T...
Kumar Gopika Raman Roy Vs. Atal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR734
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Calcutta affirming a decree of the First Subordinate Judge at Sylhet and dismissing the plaintiff's suit, which both Courts held to be barred by limitation.2. The plaintiff sued as the owner of a one-seventh share of the permanently settled estate No. 85 of the Collectorate of Sylhet to eject defendants Nos. 1 to 160 from 143 holdings in the occupation at the date of the plaint of defendants Nos. 1 to 160, as shown in the first schedule to the plaint. Defendant No. 161 was joined as a purchaser from defendant No. 148, defendants Nos. 162 to 186 as the co sharers with the plaintiff in the estate, and defendant No. 187 as vendor to the plaintiff's father in 1896.3. The plaint alleged that by an amicable arrangement the lands in schedule I had been allotted to a predecessor of the plaintiff in respect of a one-seventh share, which was afterwards acquired by the plaintiff's father in 1896, that they had all along been i...
In Re: Yeshvantibai Eknath Vijaykar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR999; 122Ind.Cas.135
Rangekar, J.1. This is an application by the widow of one Eknath Dwarkanath Vijayakar, on behalf of the minor sons of the deceased, for being appointed as guardian for the purpose of applying jointly with another son of the deceased, namely, Motiram, and for letters of administration of the property and credits of the deceased for the use and benefit of the said minors and limited during the period of the minority of the elder of them.2. The deceased died leaving behind him the petitioner as his widow, Motiram, a son by his pre-deceased wife and who is of age, and two sons, Madhav and Vishnu, being the sons of the petitioner both of whom are minors, and two minor daughters.3. There are two objections raised to the petition. The first is that the petitioner is applying for a joint grant.4. Section 218(1) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 runs as follows:-If the deceased has died intestate and was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, administration of his es...
Emperor Vs. Lalya Bapu Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR521; 117Ind.Cas.336
Mirza, J.1. The finding of the learned Magistrate is that the accused applicant along with the original two accused and one Fakirya brought down the girl Parvati alias Shivi from Thana to Bombay and took her to the brothel of one Bhagirthi. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that Parvati was already a prostitute before she was brought down to Bombay and hence in law no offence was committed. The words in Section 7 of Bombay Act XI of 1923 are 'becoming a prostitute.' A person who is already a prostitute, it is contended, cannot be said to become one afterwards, The evidence of Parvati's prostitution on which reliance is placed is that whilst she was in Thana she was in the keep of a G.I.P. Railway porter for about four years and during that time she also had a paramour. Such facts, in our opinion, are not sufficient to constitute a woman a prostitute. The idea underlying prostitution is that a woman should surrender her body for a monetary consideration to some one who is not i...
Kershaji Dhanjibhai Vs. Kaikhushru Kolhabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1081; 121Ind.Cas.433
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a most unhappy example of the possibilities of litigation in India. The suit began seventeen years ago in 1911, and we are yet at an appeal from a preliminary decree. The suit was one for the administration and division of the estate of one Dhanjibhai who died in 1901, The parties are all Parsis. The voluminous pedigree shown in paragraph 2 of the plaint exemplifies that the parties alleged to be interested are very numerous. Defendant No. 1 contends that even that list is not enough, and that there ought to be ten or eleven parties added, and he has accordingly set up a rival pedigree. Naturally with such a large number of parties the litigation is delayed, But apart from that the parties spent the first two years of litigation in raising technical points as to parties and so on, and in that way they succeeded in litigating for many years without the slightest practical result.2. The real contest in the case is as to the position of defendant No. 1...
Bai Kashi Vs. Chunilal Hathising
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom11; (1929)31BOMLR1199
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. Two preliminary points arise on this appeal: (1) that the suit could not have been instituted without the leave of the Court under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and (2) that it could not be brought without notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as defendant No. 3, the receiver in insolvency, is alleged to be a public officer within the meaning of that section and Section 2(17) of the Civil Procedure Code, The learned trial Judge sustained both these objections. The plaintiffs now appeal.2. As regards Section 28(2) the learned Judge does not cite in his judgment Section 28(6) which says: 'Nothing in this section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to realize or otherwise deal with his security, in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realize or deal with it if this section had not been passed'. One possible construction of that section would be that the secured creditor could realize or deal wi...
Bai Kashi and anr. Vs. Chunilal Hatising
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.857
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. Two preliminary points arise on this appeal: (1) that the suit could not have been instituted without the leave of the Court under Section 28 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and (2) that it could not be brought without notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as defendant No. 3, the receiver in insolvency, is alleged to be a public officer within the meaning of that section and Section 2 (17) of the Civil Procedure Code, The learned trial Judge sustained both these objections. The plaintiffs now appeal.2. As regards Section 28 (2) the learned Judge does not cite in his judgment Section 28 (6) which says: ''Nothing in this section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to realize or otherwise deal with his security in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realize or deal with it if this section had not been passed.' One possible construction of that section would be that the secured creditor could realize or deal wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »