Mumbai Court March 1929 Judgments
Ravishankar Prabhashankar Vs. Narsidas Jekisondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR205
Mirza, J. 1. [After setting out the facts the judgment proceeded:] At the hearing of the suit Mr. Vakeel on behalf of defendant No. 1 raised a preliminary issue, viz., whether the suit as framed was maintainable. He has contended that the present suit would fall under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as the plaintiffs have not filed it with the consent of the Advocate General it cannot be maintainad. Prayer (g) of the prayers of the plaint is that defendant .No. 1 may be ordered to render a complete account of the income and offerings of the said temple and the rents and profits of the said shop. That relief along with the relief claimed under prayer (b) of the prayers to the plaint, namely, that it may be declared that the rents and profits of the shop opposite the said temple are dedicated for the use and benefit of the said temple, are abandoned by the plaintiffs. It is unnecessary therefore to consider the force of defendant No. 1's objection relating to the maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Kasturbhai Manibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR676
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The sole point we are concerned with is on the preliminary issues as to whether this suit will lie. The suit is brought under Article 77 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which provides that 'where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered, under Section 72 or Section 76, any person claiming under such document' may institute a suit in effect to enforce registration. Then under Section 76 it is provided that 'Every Registrar refusing (a) to register a document except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his district or that the document ought to be registered in the office of a Sub-Registrar, shall make an order of refusal and record the reasons.' Then Sub-clause (6) provides for the case where the Registrar has refused to direct the registration of a document under Section 72 or Section 75. Section 72 relates to appeals from the order of the Sub-Registrar; and Section 75 to orders by the Registrar...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkarrai Lakshmiprasad Vs. Yeshwantrai Hariprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom98
Rangnekar, J.1. The applicant Dinkarrai Laxmiprasad prays that the agreement in writing dated 2nd August 1927 between him and the respondent Yeshwantrai referring matters in dispute between them to arbitration be filed in Court, and that an order of reference to the arbitrators appointed in accordance with the provisions of the said agreement or to such other arbitrator or arbitrators as the Court may deem fit be made, The application is made under Para. 17, Schedule 2, Civil P.C.2. The material facts are that the applicant and the respondent carried on business in Bombay in the name of Y.H. Desai & Co., and were secretaries, treasurers and agents of the Barsi Spinning and Weaving Co. The applicant alleges that in December 1922, taking advantage of his absence from Bombay the respondent with the fraudulent intention of depriving the applicant of any benefit in the agency agreement and to secure the same for himself wrote to the company that Y.H. Desai & Co. resigned their position as s...
Tag this Judgment!The Government Pleader Vs. Siddick H. Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR625; 121Ind.Cas.587
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under the disciplinary jurisdiction against Mr. Siddick H. Shaikh, a district pleader holding a sanad for the Surat District. The charge against him is shortly that he had been guilty of improper conduct under Section 20 of the Bombay Pleaders Act inasmuch as he sent various 1929 circular post-cards to the public with reference to the examination of accounts of wakf properties. These post-cards are signed by him as High Court Pleader. They are in the form Exh. C, and after stating his address and the date are as follows:-Respected Sir,Greetings. His Honour the District Judge of Surat has authorised me to examine the accounts of wakf properties and to issue certificates. Accounts in respect of wakf properties should be filed in the District Court before June 30 every year. Fee for examining the accounts is one per cent, on the annual income.Shaikh Siddikbhai Hajibhai,High Court Pleader.It will thus be seen that the pleader gives his ad...
Tag this Judgment!Bijuboo Vs. Rajaballi Tayaballi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR954; 122Ind.Cas.64
Murphy, J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay in filing an appeal, The original suit, which was filed by the applicant as plaintiff, was decided by the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge on January 23, 1928. From that decree, it is said, under advice from the local pleaders at Ahmedabad, an appeal No. 106 of 1928 was filed within time in the Court of the District Judge of that place. The appeal appears to have been admitted and an interim injunction was granted against the defendants, but a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the opponents, and it was held by the learned District Judge, that the appeal did not lie to his Court, but to the High Court, and that he had no jurisdiction to hear it. This decision was given on July 20, 1928, and the memorandum of appeal was returned to the applicant on July 28, 1928. It was presented to this Court on July 30, 1928. The appeal in question is obviously out of time, and we have been asked to excuse the delay under Section 5 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Government Pleader Vs. S.A. Pleader
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Bom335
Marten, C.J.1. This is an application under the disciplinary jurisdiction against Mr. S a District Pleader holding a sanad for the Surat District. The charge against him is shortly that he had been guilty of improper conduct under Section 20, Bombay Pleaders Act, inasmuch as he sent various circular post cards to the public with reference to the examination of accounts of wakf properties. These post cards are signed by him as High Court Pleader. They are in the form Ex. C, and after stating his address and the date are as follows:Respected Sir,Greetings, His Honour the District Judge of Surat has authorised me to examine the accounts of wakf properties and to issue certificates. Accounts in respect of wakf properties should be filed in the District Court before 30th June every year. Pee for examining the accounts is one per cent on the annual income.SHigh Court Pleader.2. It will thus be seen that the pleader gives his address and description. So far as the description goes he is not e...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Manjanna Shanbhog Vs. the Sectretory of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1052
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy dismissing summarily an appeal from Mr. Sen, the District Judge of confirming the decision of the first ass Subordinate Judge at Karwar. The question arises about a Maehwa which was confiscated by the customs authorities under the Sea Customs Act, Appeals do not lie to the High Court from the decision of the customs authorities. This Court, speaking generally, has no jurisdiction in revenue matters having regard to the Government of India Act, But what we are entitled to see is that the principles of natural justice have been carried out and provided that is done by the revenue authorities, then this Court is no longer concerned with the actual decision arrived at by the authorities as to whether it is right or wrong.2. This is a limited jurisdiction which is well known in certain branches of the civil law. For instance, as regards the expulsion of members of a club, where the decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Manjanna Shanbhog and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.51
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. This is a Letters Petent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy dismissing summarily an appeal from Mr. Sen, the District Judge of Kanara, confirming the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Karwar. The question arises about a machwa which. was confiscated by the Customs Authorities under the Sea Customs Act. Appeals do not lie to the High Court from the decision of the Customs Authorities. This Court, speaking generally, has no jurisdiction in revenue matters having regard to the Government of India Act. But what we are entitled to see is that the principles of natural justice have been carried out and provided that is done by the Revenue Authorities, then this Court is no longer concerned with the actual decision arrived at by the authorities as to whether it is right or wrong.2. This is a limited jurisdiction which is well known in certain branches of the civil law. For instance, as regards the expulsion of members of a club, where the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Ahmed BhauddIn Parkar Vs. Babu Devji Zujam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom135; (1929)31BOMLR778
Patkar, J.1. It is urged on behalf of the appellants, the descendants of the original mortgagee, that the plaintiff's are estopped from denying that they had a right to transfer the property to the mortgagees under the sale-deed, Exhibit 51, and reliance is placed on the ruling in Jayram v. Narayan (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 652 and Section 55, Clause 2, of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The decision in Jayram v. Narayan proceeds on the principle of estoppel as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee recognised in the ruling in Narayan Khandu Kulkarni v. Kal-gaunda Birdar Patel I.L.R(1889) . 14 Bom. 404 that the mortgagor could not have questioned his own right to mortgage the property in dispute, and has not extended the principle of estoppel as between a vendor and a purchaser. Section 55, Clause (2) of the Transfer of Property Act relates to an implied covenant by a vendor that he has power to transfer the property and in case of a breach of the covenant the vendor exposes himself to a sui...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Ahmed BhauddIn Parkar and ors. Vs. Babu Devji Zujam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.113
Patkar, J.1. [After stating the facts :] It is urged on behalf of the appellants, the descendants of the original mortgagee, that, the plaintiffs are estopped from denying that, they had a right to transfer the property to the mortgagees under the sale-deed, Ex. 51, and reliance is placed on the ruling in Jayaram v. Narayan Page of 3 B.-[Ed.], and s 55, Clause 2 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The decision in Jayaram v. Narayan Page of 3 B.-[Ed.] proceeds on the principle of estoppel as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee recognised in the ruling in Narayan Khandu Kulkarni v. Kalgaunda Birdar Patel 14 B. 404 that the mortgagor could not have questioned his own right to mortgage the property in dispute, and has not extended the principle of estoppel as between a vendor and a purchaser. Section 55, Clause (2) of the Transfer of Property Act relates to an implied covenant by a vendor that he has power to transfer the property and in case of a breach of the covenant the vendor expos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »