Mumbai Court February 1931 Judgments
Jagjivandas Jethalal Vs. King, Hamilton and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR709
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are suing to enforce an equitable mortgage of immoveable property situated at Dadar. It is, I think, quite clear from the plaint that the plaintiffs' case is that the defendants as owners of the immoveable property in question created an equitable mortgage upon it as sureties for the firm of Sarda & Sons who were carrying on business in Calcutta and who owed money to the plaintiffs who were carrying on the business of banking in Calcutta. The defendants' case, according to their written statement, was that in April 1922 the defendants applied to Sarda & Sons for a loan whereupon V.V. Sarda, a member of the firm, stated that he would negotiate with the plaintiffs for an overdraft to Sarda & Sons secured by a mortgage of the defendants' Dadar property and they say that those negotiations broke down and that no loan resulted. It appears from the evidence of Krishnalal Gokuldas, who is a brother of defendant No. 2 and attends to his bu...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR950
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This case does not fall within the strict rule that has been again and again laid down that this Board does not and will not act as a tribunal of criminal appeal, because here the objection, if it were good, would go to the root of the jurisdiction. But it is subject to the ordinary criterion which is applied to all petitions for special leave to appeal, to wit, that leave will not be granted where upon the face of the application it is plain that on the merits it is bound to fail.2. Now the only case that is made here is that Section 72 of the Government of India Act did not authorise the Governor General to make the order he did, constituting a special tribunal for the trial of the offenders who, having been convicted, are now petitioners here. The 72nd section is as follows:--72. The Governor General may, in cases of emergency, make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good governments of British India or any part thereof, and any ordinance so made shal...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Ghose Vs. Rash Behari Mandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR954
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Port William, in Bengal, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna and dismissing as against the respondents, the appellants' suit.2. The respondents appearing are nine out of an original concourse of 414 defendants, who at the commencement of the litigation on April 30, 1921, were, so far as was physically possible, in occupation of an area of lands approximately 6,000 bighas in extent, situate in the Collectorate of District Khulna, in Bengal. The appellants' claim in the suit was to recover from the impleaded defendants khas possession of these lands. Their case in substance--it will suffice to state in the barest outline--was that the respective interest of the defendants in the lands were no more than incumbrances within the meaning of Section 11 of Bengal Regulation VIII of 1819, and that the appellants as auction purchasers of the putni in which the 6,000 bighas were compr...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Thakur Ram Krishna Muraji Vs. Ratan Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR988
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant idol through its manager, Ram Lal, against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated April 2, 1928, which reversed a decree, dated January 31, 1924, of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore.2. The suit was brought by Ratan Chand, a minor, under the guardianship of his mother, against the said defendant idol, and one Gulab Chand, for a declaration that a preliminary decree, dated July 26, 1922 (and the final decree, if any), in Suit 57 of 1922, in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, and decided by the Second Subordinate Judge of the said Court, is invalid, null and void and ineffectual against the plaintiff, and that the property in dispute, viz., a house in the city of Cawnpore, the subject matter of a mortgage dated December 5, 1920, is not saleable in execution of the said decree. Gulab Chand did not defend the suit, the defendant idol filed a written statement and contested the plaintiff's c...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharlal Harilal Pandya Vs. Liladhar Amthalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1123
Baker, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts proceeded:] The Judge of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad held that the question to be decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent or damages for loss of rent for the period daring which he continued to be the owner of the equity of redemption from the defendant who had already paid the rent to the original owner the mortgagor, and he considered that defendant was not liable to pay the rent twice over, because at the time the defendant took the property on rent for three years by payment of rent in advance on June 24, 1925, the original mortgagor was entitled to sublet the property, he being in actual management of the same as a tenant of the first mortgagee with possession, and there was nothing to show that the first mortgagee objected to the arrangement, the grant of the lease between the mortgagor and the defendant, The second mortgagee, the mortgagee of the equity of redemption, filed his application to have th...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Har Prasad Singh Vs. the Judges of the High Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR945
Macmillan, J.1. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on June 25, 1930, found the petitioner guilty of certain charges made against him under Clause 8 of the Letters Patent of the Court, and ordered his name to be struck off the roll of vakils practising before them. He now craves special leave to appeal against this order. At the conclusion of the hearing their Lordships intimated that they were unable to advise His Majesty that a case for special leave had been made out, and stated that they would embody their reasons in a written judgment, This they have now done.2. It appears that in 1929 a suit founded on two bonds was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Banda at the instance of Samarjit Singh, a brother-in-law of the petitioner, against Dinkar Singh and another. While this suit was pending before the Munsif, Dinkar Singh presented an application to the High Court complaining of the conduct of the petitioner who, he alleged, had acted improperly in procuring the execution...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Bibi Vs. Triloki Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR979
George Lowndes, J.1. The property in dispute in this appeal is a house in Agra, said to be worth Rs. 20,000. It has provided the parties with litigation for over forty years. It originally belonged to one Joti Pershad. On January 27, 1864, he executed a deed by which he purported to give it to his wife, Bibi Mukandi, but it is said that the gift was not perfected by possession. Joti Pershad died in 1870, and his two sons Bishamber Nath and Amar Nath succeeded to his property. If the house had been effectively transferred to Mukandi, the sons clearly took no interest in it; but when they came to partition in 1881, it was allotted to Amar Nath, who lived in it till his death in 1884, Thereafter his widow, Hira Dei, continued to live in it till her death in April, 1907, when, if it was the property of Amar Nath, it devolved on his daughter, the appellant, Munni Bibi.2. Mukandi died in 1891, and if the deed of gift was effective the house then passed as her stridhan to her two daughters, R...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Gordhandas Mohanlal Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR815
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the penalty la vied by the Taluqdari Settlement-officer on the plaintiff-respondent was legal or illegal.2. The two villages of Aghar and Chanothia are talukdari villages. They were under the management of the Taluqdari Settlement-officer who leased them for twenty-five years in 1906 and 1905 respectively to the plaintiff-respondent under the leases Exhibits 31 and 32. These leases stipulated payment of the rents on certain dates by the lessee. In 1922 default was undoubtedly made in respect of both the villages on the due dates, viz., February 25 in the case of Aghar and March 10 in the case of the other village. The Taluqdari Settlement-officer sent him a notice on April 8, 1922, which the respondent received on April 11, asking him to pay the rent within ten days. The payment was not made till April 24, the 22nd being Saturday. The trial Court held, and, in our opinion, rightly, that there was delay both in respect of the period...
Tag this Judgment!Gangagir Jankidas Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1029
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant's suit is barred for want of a certificate under as, 4 and 6 of the Pensions Act, XXIII of 1871, as the trial Court has held.2. One Kushalbhai Neechabhai had obtained a Sanad for an allowance computed in respect of his Desaigiri Haq in 1878. His widow Bai Kashi sold the allowance to the plaintiff appellant on May 3, 1922, for Rs, 5000. The appellant after his purchase applied to the Collector to have his name entered in the register under the Watan Act, and on August 8, 1923, he was informed by the Mamlatdar of Chikhli that the Commissioner had ordered it to be entered. But on November 29, 1923, the Mamlatdar informed him that his name had been entered only during the life time of Bai Kashi. The plaintiff accordingly filed the present suit against the Secretary of State for a declaration that he was the full owner of the Desaigiri cash allowance standing in the name of Bai Kashi and was entitled to hold the ...
Tag this Judgment!Yosef David Varulekar Vs. Moses Solomon Talkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1114
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a decree against the defendants, the decree being: 'ordered that the plaintiff has the right that his sweeper shall have liberty to go through the lane described in the plaint in order to clear the latrine situated in the plaintiff's premises described in the plaint; and the defendants are ordered not to obstruct the sweeper. The plaintiff should get the obstruction caused by the defendant removed through Court.' This was on February 16, 1920. On appeal this decree was confirmed by the District Judge, Thana. On second appeal to the High Court the decree was confirmed, the case being Varulekar v. Talkar (1921) 21 Bom. L.R. 298, in which reference is made to the Judge being satisfied that the lane was used by the plaintiff as of right for more than twenty years and that a right to an easement had been established. The High Court, however, in its judgment advised the defendants to move the Municipality to require the plaintiff to remove the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »