Mumbai Court March 1931 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.
Lakhamgouda Basa Vprabhu Sardesai Vs. Baswantrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR974
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court at Bombay, which dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff, the present appellant, from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum and allowed a cross-appeal by the defendants, the respondents. The respondents did not file a case or appear before this Board. The plaintiff is the Sirdesai of Vantmur and he brought the present suit to recover possession of lands which, as he alleged, his predecessor in title had given to the defendants' predecessor in title in the year 1841, as remuneration for services as a shiledar or mounted follower. The defendants' claim was that the land was granted to their predecessor, and that the tenure was heritable and permanent so long as the holder was prepared to render the necessary service. It was common ' ground that since about 1868 the plaintiff andhis predecessors had been receiving nokriansha, or a yearly payment in lieu of service, from the defendantel and their predecessors, and a further or alternati...
Shankar Vs. Daooji Misir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1000
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by two of the plaintiffs in the suit, viz,, Shankar and Ramnath, against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated May 14,1928, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Benares dated November 10, 1925. The last mentioned decree had affirmed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares dated August 6, 1925.2. Paltu, the seventh respondent and the first plaintiff in the suit, is the father of the plaintiff-appellants.3. Munhu Lal was the father of Paltu; Munnu Lal, Paltu and the plaintitf-appellants were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, and the house, which was the subject-matter of the suit, was part of the ancestral property of the said joint family.4. The suit was instituted on November 8, 1924; at that time Kamnath was a minor, and sued through Shankar as his next friend.5. The material facts are as follows:-On May 8, 1915, Munnu Lal executed a deed conveying the said house ...
Hanmant Shriniwas Deshpande Vs. Shriniwas Lakshmipati Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1106
Baker, J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against two orders passed by a single Judge rejecting the application of the applicant for revision of an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, and for excuse of delay in filing a petition.2. The facts of this case are rather peculiar. The applicant filed a suit in forma pauperis in 1910 for partition against his bhaubands. The suit was contested by his nephews and by certain alienees of part of the family property. The suit was referred to arbitration, and an award was passed on September 2, 1913 ultimately followed by a decree in terms of the award on July 31, 1916. Against that decree First Appeal No. 41 of 1917 with Civil Revision Application No. 330 of 1916 was made to the High Court by the plaintiff to set aside the award. The award was ultimately set aside on August 12,1919. Defendant No. 1 applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The leave was refused on July 10,1922. The record wa...
David Sassoon Ezekiel Vs. Najia Noori Reuben
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR725
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Wadia, dated September 25, 1930, by which the learned Judge has declared that the betrothal between the plaintiff and the defendant entered into with the minor plaintiff on behalf of the defendant at Basra on July 5, 1929, is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff. He has further declared that the plaintiff is separated from the defendant and then he has ordered that the defendant do execute a formal bill of divorcement in favour of the plaintiff according to the requirements of the Jewish law within one week from the date of the order by taking such necessary steps and doing all such acts and things as may be necessary according to the directions of the Jewish Conciliation Committee, and has further ordered that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit.2. The first point taken by Mr. Mathalone, on behalf of the respondent, is that inasmuch as the defendant has not executed the bill of divor...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Collector of Etah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR968
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated December 17,1926, varying preliminary and final decrees of the Court of the District Judge of Aligarh.2. These three decrees were passed in a suit for the administration of, what was alleged and what each Court has found to be, a trust for public purposes of a charitable nature. The appellant and his co-defendant, Kesri Chand, were the surviving trustees of the trust, and in the suit a claim was made against the appellant for Rs. 1,83,000 of its funds, said to have been misappropriated by him. The plaintiff also sought to have the appellant removed from his position as trustee and to have a scheme promulgated for the future administration of the trust. The preliminary decree of the District Court directed the appellant to be so removed, It ordered him to account for the trust property which had come into his hands. It propounded a scheme for the future administration of the trust and o...
In Re: D.V. Belvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR673
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed by the District Magistrate, Belgaum, on December 11, 1930, forbidding Prabhat Pheris in the city and cantonment of Belgaum as creating a nuisance and inconvenience and creating conditions favourable to the disturbance of public tranquillity. The period of the order was two months. The order has, therefore, expired, but we have allowed the application to be argued on the merits, as it is represented to us that a certain number of persons have been convicted and the prosecution of others is contemplated for disobeying the order.2. The two grounds on which the order is challenged are, firstly, that the order is too wide, and secondly, that evidence tendered by the petitioners was not allowed to be adduced by the learned District Magistrate.3. It is contended for the Crown that the order is an administrative order, the recording of evidence was not absolutely necessar...
Emperor Vs. Lakshman Chavji Narangikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR675
Madgavkar, J. 1. This application raises a question of some importance under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On September 25, 1930, a disturbance took place at Chirner, thirteen miles from Panvel, forty-seven accused were sent up before the Magistrate, and on January 31, 1931, were committed by him for trial before the Sessions Court of Thana under Sections 120B(1), 147, 148, 149, 224, 302, 332, 379, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial would have taken place at Thana with a jury.2. On February 12, 1931, the following notification, No. 8252-2 dated February 5, 1931, was published in the Bombay Government Gazette-Under Section 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), the Governor in Council is pleased to direct that Mr. N.R. Gundil, LL.B., Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, shall try the case known as the Chirner Riot Case, which has been committed to the Sessions by Mr. R.R. Sonalkar, a Magistrate of the First Class in the dis...
Ratanlal Khushalrai Vs. Brijmohan Pralhadka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR703
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania raising certain questions of commercial usage and commercial law which are discussed at length in the judgment of the learned Judge. It would really be enough to say that I entirely agree with his judgment except as to the point of interest with which I will deal presently. In deference to the strenuous argument of Mr. Mehta I will state very shortly my own reasons for thinking the appeal must fail.2. The claim of the plaintiffs is based on their having been instructed as defendants' brokers to purchase 450 tons of linseed for the vaida of September 1921. A hundred tons were subsequently sold. As to twenty-five there was an Havala; that reduces the amount to 325 tons. The learned Judge held that as to seventy-five tons the plaintiffs never did purchase them in the market as brokers, but allocated to the defendants' contract seventy-five tons belonging to the plaintiffs, and he held that the plaintiffs w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›