Mumbai Court September 1930 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.
Sadashiv Govind Akolker Vs. Soondardas Narandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1647
J.W.E. Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the appellant presented a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis on April 10, 1930. The learned Prothonotary in dealing with the matter under Rule 5 of Order XXXIII came to the conclusion that the allegations did not show a cause of action, because the claim as set out in the petition was barred by the Indian Limitation Act. The decision of the learned Prothonotary was upheld by the Judge in Chambers and it is against the decision of the Judge in Chambers that the present appeal is brought.2. The first point taken by the respondent is that no appeal lies against an order of a Judge in Chambers refusing leave to sue in forma pauperis. That question turns on the meaning of the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The meaning of 'judgment' in that clause has been considered in most of the High Courts in India, and this Court has, in the case of Miya Mahomed v. Zorali (1909) 11 Bom. L.R. 241, followed the decisions of the Calcutta Hi...
Amritlal Vadilal Vs. Kantilal Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR266
Patkar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the proceedings in execution of the decree in suit No. 158 of 1910 of the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. The facts involved in this case are somewhat peculiar. A certain house was partitioned between the plaintiff and his co-owner one Mayabhai. The superstructure was allotted to the plaintiff and the ground-floor was allotted to Mayabhai in the year 1857. The building was burnt down in 1883. In 1897 Mayabhai sold his interest in the property to one Vadilal, the father of the appellant. In 1910, the plaintiff proposed to reconstruct the building and was prevented from doing by Vadilal. He then filed suit No. 158 of 1910 and obtained a decree establishing his right to build and directing the judgment-debator to make a foundation on the eastern boundary of the land (sic) perpetually restraining him from building higher than nine (sic) over the surface line of the cellar any superstructure, and restraining the judgment-debtor from offering any obstr...
Shidramappa Mutappa Biradar Vs. Mallappa Ramchandrappa Biradar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR278
Patkar, J. 1. This appeal raises an important question as to the effect of non-observance of the condition under which a suit is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. On August 28, 1920, a suit based on substantially the same cause of action as the present one in which the second appeal arises, was allowed to be withdrawn. The order was as follows:--The plaintiff is allowed to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. The plaintiff to pay the defendants costs. The plaintiff will not be allowed to bring a fresh suit unless he pays the defendants' costs of this suit. 3. On June 25, 1925, a second suit No. 354 of 1925 was brought on the same cause of action without payment of the costs, and, therefore, without fulfilling the condition attached to the permission given to bring a fresh suit. The order passed in that suit was as follows:--The plaintiff is a m...
Babasaheb Rahimsaheb Vs. Rajaram Raghunath Alpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR260
Madgavkar, J.1. This application raises an interesting point under Bombay Act III of 1865.2. The parties are wrestlers and entered into an agreement as follows: firstly, they were to wrestle in Poona on a certain day;secondly, the party failing to appear on that day was to forfeit Rs. 500 to the opposite party; thirdly, the winner was to receive Es. 1,125 of the gate-money. The defendant failed to appear in the ring and the plaintiff sued for Rs, 500. The plea of wagering raised by the defendant in the trial Court failed and he applies in revision.3. It is argued for the petitioner that by reason of the agreement for payment to the winner, who was uncertain, the entire agreement fell under Section 1 of the Bombay Act III of 1865 and was by way of gaming or wagering, and the fact that wrestling is a test of skill and strength is immaterial, and that the same result follows under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act.4. The statutes 8 & 9 Vic. Clause 18, Sections 9 and 10 are similar and...
Chandulal Madhavlal Vs. Maneklal Lalluram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom251
Madgavkar, J. 1. The question in these applications is how far the receiver appointed by the Baroda Courts can be recognized for the purpose of filing suits in the British Courts. The Baroda Court appointed a receiver. He filed suits in the British Courts. Objection was then taken, which was apparently allowed, and the partners were brought on the record. Subsequently objection was taken as to limitation and contrary to the opinion implied, though not expressed, by his predecessor, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suits were barred by limitation. 2. The plaintiff has applied in revision. 3. Our attention has been invited today to appeals on similar orders in the District Court of Nadiad, in which the First Class Subordinate Judge with appellate powers has allowed the appeals, and we are asked to follow the reasoning in the judgment in Appeal No. 40 of 1929 in that Court decided on 28th June 1930. 4. That judgment apart, on general principles, as was observed by Macleod, C.J....
Emperor Vs. Chanappa Shantirappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1613
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. These are seventeen petitions for relief in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the common law jurisdiction of the Court.2. The Advocate General questions whether the Court has any common law jurisdiction in the matter, but as the provisions of Section 491 are wide enough to cover the relief claimed, that question has not been considered.3. The features common to all these cases are that each petitioner was charged and convicted at Sholapur between 8-30 p. m. on May 12, and 3-45 p. m. on May 18, of offences against martial law regulations, and each petitioner was sentenced by military Court or tribunal acting under those regulations.4. Before dealing with the facts, I will state what I conceive to be the law applicable to the case. According to English constitutional law, where a state of war, or insurrection amounting to war, exists, it is competent for the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, to place the coun...
Chanappa Shantirappa and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.596
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. These are seventeen petition or relief in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, and the common law jurisdiction of the Court.2. The Advocate-General questions whether the Court has any common law jurisdiction in the matter, but as the provisions of Section 491 are wide enough to cover the relief claimed, that question had not been considered.3. The features common to all these cases are that each petitioner was charged and convicted at Sholapur between 8-30 P.M. on 12th May and 345 P.M. on 18th May of offences against Martial Law Regulations and each petitioner was sentenced by Military Court or Tribunal acting under those Regulations.4. Before dealing with facts I will state what I conceive to be the law applicable to the case. According to English constitutional law, where state of war or insurrection amounting to war, exists it is competent for the Grown, in the exercise of its prerogative, to place the country affected under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›