Mumbai Court March 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.
Narsi Tokersey and Co. Vs. Sachindranath Gajanan Gidh (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1009
Kemp, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out facts and issuer proceeded.] The date of birth of defendant No. 1 shows that at the date of the institution of this suit defendant No. 1 was over the age of eighteen years and under the age of twenty-one years and the position is the same today. The plaintiffs contend that the appointment of the father as guardian of the property of these minor sons under the inherent jurisdiction o! this Court is not the appointment of a guardian of the property of the minor under Section 3 of the Majority Act (IX of 1875) because no appointment of the guardian of the property of a minor coparcener can be made, where there are adult coparceners, as the minor has only an undivided interest in the joint family property. In other words, they say that Section 3 of Act IX of 1875 contemplates the existence of separate property of the minor to which the guardian must be appointed.2. I will first deal with the case law on the point. There can be no doubt that under...
Narsi Tokersey and Co. Vs. Sachindranath Gajanan Gidh (No. 2) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.129
Kemp, J.1. The date of birth of defendant No. 1 shows that at the date of the institution of this suit defendant No. 1 was over the age of eighteen years and under the age of twenty-one years and the position is the same to day. The plaintiffs contend that the appointment of the father as guardian of the property of these minor sons under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not the appointment of a guardian of the property of the minor under Section 3 of the Majority Act (IX of 1875) because no appointment of the guardian of the property of a minor coparcener can be made, where there are adult coparceners, as the minor has only an undivided interest in the joint family property. In other words, they say that Section 3 of Act IX of 1875 contemplates the existence of separate property of the minor to which the guardian must be appointed.2. I will first deal with the case-law on the point. There can be no doubt that under the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890 no guardian can be ...
In Re: Vali Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR591
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Third Class Magistrate, Amod. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused and finding that the complaint was false and vexations called on the complainant who was present on the same day to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the accused under b. 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant showed cause and the learned Magistrate adjourned the proceedings and Subsequently passed an order after four days directing the complainant to pay Rs. 20 to the accused and in default to suffer dimple imprisonment for ten days. The complainant appealed to the District Magistrate, and the learned District Magistrate, relying on the ruling in In the 'matter of the complaint of Safdar Husain I.L.R(1903) All. 315 set aside the order of the Third Class Magistrate on the ground that it was without jurisdiction as it was not passed on the same day along with the order o...
Emperor Vs. Gafur Daud Bohra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR578
Patkar, J.1. It is urged in support of this appeal that balconies and eaves form part of a building according to the decision in Tribhovan v. Ahmedabad Municipality (1902) 5 Bom. L.R. 48 and that whether the street is a private street or a public street the Municipality has power to act under Section 96 of the Bombay District Muuicipal Act, 1901, according to the ruling in Viramgam Municipality v. Bhaichand Damodar (1919) 22 Bom. L.R. 61. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of Fawcefct J. in the case of Ahmedabad Municipality v. Manilal (1920) 23 Bom. L.R. 193 where it was held that Section 113 of the Municipal Act did not restrict the general powers conferred on a Municipality by Section 96.2. It is conceded on behalf of the accused that Section 96 would apply to balconies or eaves and other projections of a house which form part of a building and that notice is necessary under Section 96, but it is argued on behalf of the accused that the order passed by the Municipality pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›