Mumbai Court April 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.
Abdul Gafur Mahmadsaheb Maniyar Vs. Jayarabi Ibrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1093; 122Ind.Cas.833
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This civil revisional application relates to a succession certificate granted to the estate of one Abdul Nabi. The learned trial Judge granted two certificates. As regards certain properties described in the present proceedings as property A, be granted a certificate to the son Ahmadsaheb and the widow Sharifabi of Abdul Nabi, but he left out the daughters Jairabi and Ghudnma, who were opponents Nos. 3 and 4 in the trial Court. Then as regards the property B, he granted a certificate to Abdul Gafur the son and Rasulbi the widow of Mabaniad Husein. In doing so, the learned Judge left out the daughter Jaytumbi who was opponent No. 5 in the trial Court.2. The property A and the property B in question had been the subject of litigation in which there had been a compromise decree as between the respective branches of Abdul Nabi and his brother Maharnad Husein. This compromise decree dated August 2, 1&26, is in cross appeals to this Court Nos. 308 and 620 of 1925...
Yusuf I.A. Lalji Vs. Abdullabhoy Lalji (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom362; (1930)32BOMLR667
Rangnekar, J.1. In this case, by consent of the parties an order was made on Daosmbar 11. 1928, authorising the receiver in the suit to pay the sum of Rs. 40,000 to defendant No. 13. Defendants Nos. 4A, 4B, and 6 thereafter appeared before me in chambers and applied for setting aside that order on the ground that the order was obtained on certain false representations and promises. The application was dismissed by me on the ground that it was a consent order and could not be set aside except by 1 proceedings properly framed for that relief. After this, these defendants presented an application for review of my order. When that review application came before me it was contended on behalf of defendant No. 13 that no review lay. In answer to that contention Mr. Taraporewala argued that even if technically an application for review did not lie the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under its inherent jurisdiction. After hearing the arguments, I delivered a judgment in whic...
The Fibre Aloes Factory Vs. Jaffer Rasool
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1059; 121Ind.Cas.577
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment of the Commissioner dated September 22, 1927, awarding compensation to the respondent. There are two grounds urged before us. One is that the appellant, the Fibre Aloes Factory by the proprietor Amratlal Amarchand had not contracted under Section 2(1) 'for the execution by...the contractor of...work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal,' and that the Commissioner wrongly construed the agreement Exhibit 11 as creating the relationship of principal and contractor between the appellants and one Ahmed Ismail. As regards that point we are satisfied that the learned Commissioner was correct in thinking that the agreement comes within Section 12(1). Whether as regards the land in suit the agreement also amounted to a lease as argued by the appellants is in our opinion immaterial. That being so, the appellants are liable to pay compensation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›