Mumbai Court September 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.
Ravishankar Chhaganlal Vs. the Dohad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1295
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant obtained permission from the defendant-respondent, the Dohad Municipality, in March 1924 to erect his privy, and in August to use it, In September he paid the tax and in October he opened a trap-door shown in the plan (Exhibit 28) to the south according to the original permission of the managing committee. In October 1924, on the complaint of the appellant's neighbour the Municipality ordered him to alter it to the east. The appellant objected and filed the suit.2. The question between the parties was, whether having put in the trap-door to the privy to the south with the permission of the managing committee, it was open to the Municipality to order him to alter it to the east, The trial Court held that it had not the power. The lower appellate Court held that it had. The plaintiff appeals.3. Various sections such as 26, 36 as well as the general law of principal and agent as applied to the Municipality and the managing committee are relied upon ...
Emperor Vs. Ismail Hirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom49; (1929)31BOMLR1349
Patkar, J.1. In this case the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, Bombay, has made a reference, under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, submitting for decision certain points of law arising in a case pending before him.2. One Ibrahim Ismail made a complaint on Oath on September 27, 1928, before the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. Instead of issuing a special warrant under Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, he personally raided the premises in company with other police-officers. The Commissioner entered the main entrance and Sub-Inspector Salaskar. entered the side gate and arrested accused Nos. 2 and 3, Police Constable No. 714 C.T. arrested accused No. 4. R.B. Sabaji arrested 1929 accused No. 1 and Inspector Achrekar and Havaldar 932-K arrested accused Nos. 5, 6 and 8. Accused No. 7 was arrested by another policeman, Panchnamas were made of the articles found in the passage and on the person of the accused. Twenty-seven slips were found in the passage...
Ragho Ravji Bharde Vs. Gopal Janardan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1415
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a refund of a certain amount which he paid to the defendants-respondents in respect of the latter's one-sixth share of the revenue of the sharkati inam jahagir of Varkhade in the Shevgaon Taluka in the Ahmed nagar District. Both the lower Courts held that the plaintiff's claim was res judicata and that he was not entitled to a refund nor to the declaration he sought of his non-liability for any amount suspended or remitted for subsequent years.2. The village in question, as stated above, is a dumala sharkati inam village, that is to say, Government are entitled to half the assessment and the Jahagirdar to the other half. The plaintiff-appellant is the managing Jahagirdar and the defendants-respondents have a one-sixth share in the Jahagir. The assessment is made in a Tharavband and is recovered by Government and the inamdar's one-half is subsequently paid to the managing Jahagirdar the appell...
Abdul Rahman Mahomed Ismail Makbha Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom125; (1929)31BOMLR1433
Norman Kemp, Kt., A.C.J.1. Thia is a Ruit for possession of six plots of forest at Ransai amounting in all to seventy-one acres, The plots are shown in the plan marked Exhibit 18A. The plaintiff was ousted of the possession of them by virtue of a correction of the boundaries, alleged to have been fixed to the east, of the 946 acres 34 gunthas granted to him by Government under circumstances which I will proceed to narrate. The learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit. From his order the present appeal has been preferred.2. In 1832 the whole village was granted in 'Inam' to the plaintiff's grandfather. Under this grant he had Khoti rights over the whole village and absolute 'Inam' rights (full proprietary rights) over unoccupied waste land. In 1860 when the survey was introduced, 2840 acres odd were formed into one Parigh No. 100. In 1878 the Indian Forest Act was introduced and on October 10, 1883, Government notified the whole Parigh No. 100 as protected forest. On December...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›