Mumbai Court April 1930 Judgments
Sakkargauda Basangauda Gonnagar Vs. Bhimappa Hanmappa Pujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1368; 129Ind.Cas.159
Murphy, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made in execution. The decree-holder applied in darkhast No. 218 of 1924, to execute his decree, obtained in November 1912, relying on his immediately preceding application, No. 168 of 1924, having been one made in accordance with law, to bring his last application in time. The original Court rejected the application as time-barred. the appellate Court held that this was not so, and ordered execution to proceed. The appellant's appeal is against this order.2. The decision in both Courts turned on the point whether failure to comply with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 14, imparted to the application No. 168 of 1924 the character of being ' not in accordance with law ' or not. The original Court relied on the ruling in Abdul Rafi Khan v. Maula Bakhsh ILR (1915) All. 527, while the learned District Judge held that the precedent applicable was the one contained in Bando v. Narsinha : (1912)14BOMLR861 , Looking at the certified copy of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Narayan Adha Vs. Ramchandra R. Panditrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom554
Mirza, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are as' follows: On 1st April 1928 a new District Local Bourd was constituted in Satara in place of the old Board whose term of office had expired. Defendant 2, who was the President of the old Board and the retiring President until a President of the new Board was elected, had issued notices on 31st March 1928, but dated 29th March 1928, convening a meeting of the newly constituted Board on 13th April 1928, for electing its President and Vice President for the next triennium. It is common ground between the parties that the notices were served upon all the members of the newly constituted Board except two who however had come to know independently that the meeting was to beheld and bad raised no objection on the ground that they had not received the formal notice from the Board. It is also common ground that every member of the newly constituted Board was present and took part in the election of the President and the Vi...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ambaji Chavan Vs. Hari Ganesh Navare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom505; (1930)32BOMLR1186
Patkar, J.1. One Ganesh Anant Desai filed suit No. 29 of 1918 against the present plaintiff' for possession of the property in suit and obtained a decree in execution of which he was put in possession. On appeal the plaintiff got the decree reversed and then applied under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, for restoration of possession. The application was granted but defendant No. 1 resisted the delivery of possession. Thereupon the plaintiff made an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, for removal of the obstruction which was dismissed on April 15,1924, under Order XXI, Rule 99, It was incumbent on the plaintiff to bring a suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, within one year but the present suit was brought by the plaintiff on June 24, 1925. The suit is governed by Article 11A of the Indian Limitation Act and Rule 10 of Order XXI, and is clearly beyond time. The plaintiff tried t save limitation on the ground that he had made an application the High Court in revision on July 11, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmadalli Isabhai Vs. Abdul Rahim Funumulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1189
Patkar, J.1. It is conceded that the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council is not Rs. 10,000 or upwards, but it is contended that the decree or final order involves indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value. The decree passed in the case is that the plaintiff is declared entitled to hold the laud in suit on the same terms as before, all his life, that is to say, until the death of Sarafalli Mahamadalli, or until due surrender by him, during his life-time by a proper and sufficient notice. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the factory erected by him on the land is worth more than Rs. 10,000. The learned District Judge has found that the value of the buildings erected on the land is Rs. 25,620 and the loss to be sustained . by the applicant if the whole construction is removed is somewhere near Rs. 19,000, but he held that the loss to be caused in this way could not be said to be the va...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector Vs. Rambhau Tukaram Nirhali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom392; (1930)32BOMLR1084
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This reference raises a question about an additional four-anna stamp which was paid on a sale certificate, but not at the right time or in the right manner, so it is contended by the learned Government Pleader. The amount though trilling raises a question of some practical difficulty, which formed the subject of a lengthy correspondence between the Subordinate Judge and the Collector, and is now occupying the time of three Judges of this Court, having regard to the imperative conditions of Section 57 2) of the Indian Stamp Act.2. The matter arose out of a sale certificate granted by the Subordinate Judge under Order XXI, Rule 94, of the Civil Procedure Code, to an auction-purchaser so long ago as July 14, 1928. This sale certificate ought to have borne a stamp of eight annas, but in fact it had only a four-anna stamp. On that we may say at once that it was the duty of the purchaser to have borne the expense of the proper stamp having regard to Section 29 (f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shamdasani (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom477; (1930)32BOMLR1123; 129Ind.Cas.584
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application No. 140 of 1930 by Mr. Shamdasani the complainant in a case filed on June 13, 1929, and still pending before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, asking that all proceedings had before the learned Magistrate be set aside and that the case be transferred to some other Court for disposal according to law. This is the third application of a similar nature, there having been two previous applications, viz., Criminal Revision No. 71 of 1930 filed in this Court on February 17, 1930, and Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1930 filed in this Court on March 14,1930.2. The prosecution which has been instituted by the complainant is in respect of certain alleged false balance sheets which have been published. The learned Magistrate has held an inquiry for some eight days, viz., on October 9, November 27, December 4, 5 and 6, 1929, and February 1, 8 and 15, 1930, into the allegations made by the complainant. Then, on February 15, the hearing appear...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.D. Shamdasani (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom480; (1930)32BOMLR1128; 129Ind.Cas.399
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the accused in a case brought against him for defamation asking us to review the order of the learned Additional Presidency Magistrate Mr. Brown passed on April 10, 1930, on an application made by the accused for time on the ground that he meant to apply to the High Court for transfer under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order made by the learned Magistrate was :-I grant Shamdasani time until 3-30 p. in. on Saturday to malts an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for a transfer of this case to some other Court. The time for an application to the High Court has not yet arrived as he has a right to go first to the Chief Presidency Magistrate.2. The question is whether in effect the accused can, be obliged to go first to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for a transfer of the case under Section 528, or whether he is under Section 526 entitled to go to the High Court direct. It may be, as stated by Mr. Vel...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. D.R. Guru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1131
Mirza, J.1. The applicant along with four others is being prosecutad before the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 120B, and 163 of the Indian Penal Code. On March 24, 1930, he applied to the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, for being released on bail. The Magistrate refused the application on the ground that he had not then before him the charge sheets which were to be submitted by the police. The applicant then applied to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge refused to grant bail. This was on March 29, 1930. The charge sheet was filed in the Magistrate's Court on April 3, 1930. The applicant, thereupon, again applied to the City Magistrate for being released on bail. On this application the Magistrate made an order releasing the applicant on bail in his personal recognizance for Rs. 20,000 with three appointed sureties each in the sum of Rs. 7,000, The prosecution applied to the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate rel...
Tag this Judgment!Natha Nathuram Vs. Chhotalal Dajibhai Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1348
Patkar, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the property in suit as reversioner of one Harjivan Sadaram, on the ground that the marriage of defendant No. 1's father Nathu, a Brahmin by caste, with defendant No. 1's mother, a Koli woman, was invalid and illegal, that defendant No. 1 was an illegitimate son of Nathu, the brother of Harjivan, and therefore did not inherit to his uncle Harjivan.2. Defendant No. 1 contended that Nathu, born a Brahmin, married Hari, a Dharala woman, and defendant No. 1, a son, and defendant No. 2, a daughter, were born of that marriage, and were the legitimate children of Nathu and entitled to inherit Harjivan's property. The rest of the defendants are the tenants of the lands in suit.3. The learned Subordinate Judge, following the decision in Bai Gulab v. Jiwanlal Hanlal ILR (1921) 46 Bom. 871, 24 Bom. L.R. 5, held that a man of a higher caste can validly marry a girl of the lower caste, and therefore, defendant No. 1 was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Tuka Lakhu Kadam Vs. Ganu Vithu Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.145
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the plaint lands belonging to the Nayakwadi inam watan which had been alienated by their grandfather and which were not recovered back by their father during his lifetime.2. The plaintiffs' grandfather Tatya passed a mortgage in favour of Vyankaji, the deceased father of defendant No. 1, in the year 1868, and sold the property to him on April 16, 1876. The plaintiffs' grandfather died in 1891. Lakhu, the father of the plaintiffs, succeeded to the watan, and took no steps to recover the property, and died on April 29, 1907. He left behind him four sons, Ganu who died on March 13, 1917, aged twenty-five, and the present plaintiffs Tuka, Chandra and Natha, who brought the present suit on April 15, 1924, to recover possession of the property alienated by their grandfather. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on the Full Bench decision in Radhabai and Ramchandra Konher v. Anantrav Bhagvant Deshpande ILR (18...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »