Mumbai Court February 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.
Shamchandra Rampratap and ors. Vs. Bhikamchand Ganeshlal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.133
Madgavkar, J.1. [After stating the facts :] The first two issues raise somewhat important questions of law, and it will be convenient to dispose of them at the outset.2. On the question of jurisdiction reliance is placed for defendants Nos, 3a and 3b on the decision of Pratt, J. in Pranlal v. Goculdas 88 I.C. 92 : 27 Bom. L.R. 570 : A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 333, in which he has held that the High Court of Bombay hag no original jurisdiction to grant a declaration as to which out of two or more competing mortgagees is a prior mortgagee, when the property is situated as here, outside Bombay. For the plaintiffs it is pointed out that in a suit by a puisne mortgagee, a prior mortgagee of property outside the jurisdiction was added as a party by Strachey, J., in Sorabji v. Rattanji 22 B. 701, and the decision of Pratt, J., above was referred to with disapproval by Marten, C.J. in the course of the Pull Bench decision in Hatimbhai Hassanally v. Framroz Edulji Dinshaw 108 Ind. Cas. 8 : 29 Bom. L.R. 4...
Emperor Vs. Gokuldas Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR544
Mirza, J.1. It is found that the girls employed in the factory were aged fourteen years. They would, therefore, come under the definition of 'child' in the Indian Factories Act. Section 23, Clause (a), requires that:-no child shall be employed in any factory unless he is in possession of a certificate granted under Section 7 or Section 8 showing that he is not less than twelve years of age and is fib for employment in a factory and while at work carries either the certificate itself or a token giving reference to such certificate.2. It is admitted that the girls were not in possession of any such certificate or token. The certificate required by Section 23 must state in the ease of a child who has completed twelve years that he or she is fit for employment in a factory, Dewan Bahadur Rao has contended before us that in the case of a child of fourteen there is no need for such a certificate. We do not agree with that contention.3. The rules in these three cases are discharged....
Yusuf I.A. Lalji Vs. Abdullabhoy Lalji (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom294; (1930)32BOMLR665
Rangnekar, J.1. On February 4,1929, I dismissed the chamber summons taken out by defendants Nos. 4A, 4B, and 6 in suit by which they had applied for vacating the consent order made by me on December 11, 1928. I am not at all clear as to the ground on which I dismissed the summons. Two points were urged on that summons on behalf of defendant No. 13. One was that the procedure by way of chamber summons was misconceived and the proper remedy of defendants Nos. 4A, 4B and 6 was to file a suit for setting aside the consent order made on December 11, 1928. The other was that on the merits of the application no case was made out for vacating the consent order. As far as my recollection goes, I think the summons was not argued on the merits fully. But the ground taken as to the procedure being wrong was upheld by me and the summons was dismissed. The same day, the learned counsel on behalf of the defendants drew my attention to Mulling v. Howell (1879) 11 Ch. D. 763 on reading which I felt tha...
V. Seethayya Vs. P. Subramanya Somayajulu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR756
Atkin, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Madras given in eleven suits of ejectment brought by the respondents against the respective appellants. Seven out of the eleven suits were instituted in 1918, and the only question so far decided and the only question before the Board is whether the civil Court in which the actions were brought had jurisdiction and not as the appellants contend the revenue Courts The determination of this question has required recourse on seven different occasions to the Courts and has occupied nine years in Madras. The case has taken six years more to reach the Board. Their Lordships deplore this delay, which was obviously mush greater than was necessary, and reaches the borders of a scandal. They do not, however, propose to recapitulate the various stages in which the case toiled to and fro between the lower Courts and the High Court, or to apportion blame; but will address themselves at once to the question of jurisdict...
Gueudas Kundu Chowdhury Vs. Kumar Hemendra Kumar Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR148
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is a case which has arisen out of one of those curious effects of nature which have often been before the Board, namely, the behaviour of the Ganges. There were three families who, for brevity's sake, have been named the Kundu set, the Mukherjeo set, and the Roy set. They were three families of zemindars who were in joint possession of certain mousahs called Durlabhpur in Jirat and Hatikanda. They wore in joint possession in law. It was quite true that they had a separate towzi number, but that makes no difference is the legal character of the possession. These properties disappeared under the Ganges, After a considerable period of years they reappeared and when they reappeared they were in juxtaposition to some property held by the Government. The Government assumed that the land which had come out of the Ganges was an accretion to their property, and proceeded to put tenants upon it but after a certain time the zemindars woke up to the fact that it might b...
In Re: Nurmahomed Karamelahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR541
Mirza, J.1. The applicant has applied in revision against an order of a Bench of Honorary Magistrates, Second Class, Andheri, ordering him to pay Rs. 226-2-0 being the arrears of house-tax and Halalkhor-tax in respect of the past seven years of a house at Ville Parle now in his occupation.2. The evidence in the case showed that the applicant was employed twenty months ago as watchman for this house on Rs. 25 per month by the owner Lady Janbai Tharia Topan. The house in reputed to be haunted. Lady Janbai has been absent from India and is now said to be in South Africa, The applicant admits that he is staying in the bungalow and is occupying it to let the world know that it is not haunted. He also admits that be has been conducting a tea-shop in a portion of the house. He further admits that during the period of his twenty months' service he has received nothing from Lady Janbai for his wages. From these facts the Bench Magistrates have inferred that Lady Janbai let the premises to the a...
Emperor Vs. Lakshman Ramshet Alwe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR593; 121Ind.Cas.588
Mirza, J.1. The applicants were convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Mai van, of offences under Sections 392 and 341, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines. From their convictions and sentences they preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri. One of the grounds they urged against their convictions was that when the charges were framed by the Magistrate the applicants were not given a proper opportunity to cross-examine the two prosecution witnesses who were examined in the case. It appears that the case was tried before the learned Magistrate as a warrant case. When the charge was framed on August 4, 1928, the pleader of the applicants was absent from the Court as he was engaged in another Court. The Magistrate required the applicants to state forthwith whether they wished to cross-examines either of the two witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence had been taken. The applicants gave a written application to the Magistrate asking ...
Emperor Vs. Manjubhai Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR536
Mirza, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution were that in the course of a quarrel between himself and one Ranchhod, his neighbour, the applicant asked his brother Bhogilal, who was then present, to go to the house of Jivanlal, another brother of the applicant, and bring him Jivanlal's sword. Bhogilal fetched the sword, the accused took it from Bhogilal and inflicted with it several injuries on Ranchhod and some of Kanchhod's relations. Ranchhod prosecuted the accused under Section S24 of the Indian Penal Code for causing him hurt with a dangerous weapon. The trial Court convicted the applicant of that offence, but in appeal the parties compounded the offence and the appeal Court passed an order acquitting the applicant.2. The present prosecution was instituted against the applicant at the instance of the Police. The applicant was charged with going a...
Vallabhdas Naranji Vs. the Collector, Under Act. I of 1894
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR683
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Bombay upon a land acquisition case by which they have given as compensation a certain figure of Rs. 14 per acre, having set aside the judgment of the Assistant Judge of Thana, who had given a larger sum of Rs. 200 per acre.2. The land in question is an irregularly shaped piece by the sea, which is covered by the tide at various times, and which for what might be called ordinary purposes is practically useless. Land near the sea, however, has the capability that if salt works are constructed upon it it is possible to get the salt and thus establish a business. The learned Judges in the High Court say:-The real question is what would these lands have realis6d if they had been pub up is the market in December 1917, for sale by private agreement or by auction and that apparently is a point to which neither the witness nor the Judge has paid attention. It is not suggested that there are any instances of sale o...
Monjiram Indrachandra Vs. Maneklal Mansukhbhai Seth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR672
Baker, J.1. The facts of this application are a little unusual. It is an application by the firm of Monjiram Indrachandra at Calcutta to be added as respondents in First Appeal No. 514 of 1927 from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad, The firm is not a party to the original suit. The M facts are that the applicant firm Monjiram Indrachandra obtained a decree in the Calcutta High Court for a large sum against the respondent in the appeal, Nagarsheth K. Manibhai. The decree was transferred for execution to Ahmedabad, and while proceedings in execution were going on, the Court ordered certain property to be attached, but a few days prior to the attachment the respondent sold the property to the appellant, Sheth Maneklal. For certain reasons which I need not go into now, there was delay in registering the sale deed, and ultimately the Registrar refused to register it. Thereupon the vendee Sheth Maneklal brought Suit No. 44 of 1927 in the Court of the First Class Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »