Mumbai Court October 1932 Judgments
Trimbak Tumdushet Rangari Vs. Ziparu Chaturdas Bairagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom190; (1933)35BOMLR147
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Nasik raising a short point of law which has come before the other High Courts in India, but does not appear to have come before this Court. The point of law is whether, when an objection to execution proceedings is dismissed under the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 58, as being made after unnecessary delay, the order rejecting the claim is an order made against the claimant within Order XXI, Rule 63. If the order does fall within Rule 63 then the time within which to bring a suit to establish the applicant's claim is limited to one year by Article 11 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. The facts giving rise to the question are not in dispute. A money decree was obtained in 1917 against one Tanaji and on June 28, 1918, Tanaji sold Survey No. 841 the property in suit to the defendant. Execution proceedings were then taken under the decree of 1917 and in 1920 an undivided one-fourth of Survey No. 84/1 was purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Mohanlal Vs. the Nectar Tea Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom179; (1933)35BOMLR168
Rangnekar, J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 being formally joined as he was a partner of the plaintiffs in their business. The facts material for the purposes of this application are The plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 carry on business at Surat in the name of Jolly Bros. & Sons, and on November 4, 1928, they entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1, who carries on business at Mutupalayam in Coimbatore District in the Madras Presidency, under which the latter agreed to employ the plaintiffs as their solo agents to canvass orders for them in respect of tea and coffee in the six districts between Umergaum and Ahmedabad, including the Surat District, in the Bombay Presidency. On November 10, 1928, however, the defendants by their letter of that date cancelled the said agreement. The plaintiffs, therefore, sued for damages for breach of the agreement, and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 which under the a...
Tag this Judgment!indira Rani Ghose Vs. Akhoy Kumar Ghose
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR211
Blanesburgh, J.1. The question at issue on this appeal is concerned with the ultimate destination of the share of his residuary estate given by a Hindu testator to the elder of two sons who survived him. Did the share, on the death of that elder son without male issue, pass under a gift over to the younger son, or has it, as the absolute property of the deceased under the original gift to him in the will, devolved upon his widow, the appellant, sole heiress in his intestacy ?2. The question is one of construction upon which the two Courts in India are not in accord, and when regard is had to the looseness of the phraseology adopted passim in the will by the testator or his draftsman it must be felt that its true meaning raises issues upon which there is ample room for divergence of view. It is comparatively easy to determine what this Indian testator meant to say. The difficulty is to be satisfied judicially that in his English language he has succeeded in saying it.3. The testator, on...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Bhujang Shidhanti Vs. Hanamgouda Shidagauda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom439; (1933)35BOMLR956; 147Ind.Cas.919
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. The plaintiffs sued to obtain a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to redeem the suit property, and they also sued to recover possession of the property as owners from the defendant, and for certain mesne profits. The plaintiffs' title arises under a document of November 25, 1908, which is a mortgage by conditional sale. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs' title was barred by limitation, and he therefore digmissed the suit; but he raised an issue as to whether the consideration for the document of November 25 was given, and he held that it was and on that issue he discussed the evidence in some detail. The plaintiffs in this Court say that they will be satisfied by an order for possession, and they do not ask for any declaration that the defendant is not entitled to redeem.2. The first point to consider, therefore, is, whether the plaintiffs'...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Shankarshet Uravane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR174
Patkar, J.1. [The judgment states the facts.] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has urged that there were misdirections and non-directions on points of capital importance to the accused which vitiated the verdict of the jury. It is contended by counsel on behalf of the appellant that as notice is given to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced to that of death, he is entitled to go into the evidence under Sub-section (6) of Section 439, and that in showing cause why the sentence should not be enhanced, he is also entitled to show cause against the conviction. It is further urged that if the Court came to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty, he should be acquitted, but if the Court was not prepared to acquit the accused, ho should not be convicted if the Court came to the conclusion that there was a misdirection to the jury and the accused was entitled to a re-trial. On behalf of the Crown it was urged that there was no misdirection in the cha...
Tag this Judgment!Hirachand Sunderji Vs. Venidas Nemchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom194; (1933)35BOMLR271
Nanavati, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Judicial Assistant at Aden in which he refused to entertain an application by the present applicant requesting him to adjudicate one Venidas Nemchand as an insolvent by applying the spirit and principles of the Provincial Insolvency Act under Section 15 of the Aden Act II of 1864.2. The present application is made under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Mr. Amin for the opponent has taken a preliminary objection. His point is that such an application is not competent inasmuch as the Court of the Judicial Assistant at Aden is not a Court subordinate to this High Court. His contention is that the powers of revision given to the High Court under the Aden Act are only of a restricted character, and in support of this he refers to the preamble of that Act, which says:-and it is expedient to provide for the superintendence or revision of certain of Much judgments and proceedings by the High Court at Bombay ;-the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Y. Nene Vs. Ramchandra B. Tilak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom120; (1933)35BOMLR37
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a notice of motion by the respondent asking for an order on the appellant to deposit further security in the appeal. The ground on which the application is made is substantially this that the appeal is likely to bo a very heavy one, and that the costs will very greatly exceed the sum of Rs. 500 which has been lodged as security in the normal course. Rule 767 of the High Court Rules (O.S.) provides that the appellate Court may in its discretion on sufficient cause being shown order that such further amount shall be deposited by the appellant as security for the costs of the respondent in the appeal...as it think fit. If the matter were res integra it might well be contended that the fact that the costs of the appeal are likely to be heavy is one ground for saying that sufficient cause has been shown for increasing the amount of the security. But the current of authority in this Court has undoubtedly been against that view, There appears to bo no reported ca...
Tag this Judgment!Tamanbhat Shankarbhat Vs. Krishtacharya Tamancharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom122; (1933)35BOMLR144
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Dharwar. The plaintiff is the owner of certain buildings including a court-yard, and the defendants are the owners of buildings which adjoin that court-yard. The plaintiff proposed to build a wall along the side of the court-yard adjacent to the defendants' buildings, and the defendants objected to the erection of such wall. Accordingly the plaintiff sued to restrain the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in building the wall in question. The defendants pleaded that the yard in question was in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and the defendants, and in the alternative they claimed a right of way over the court-yard from their premises to the road. The two main issues raised in the trial Court were : First, whether the plaintiff proved that the yard to the north of the proposed wall belonged exclusively to the plaintiff, and that issue was answered in the affirmative. The second issue was, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Prithviraj Chothmal Marwadi Vs. the Lonavla City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom175; (1933)35BOMLR138
Nanavati, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Vadgaon filed by five plaintiffs of whom the present appellants are Nos. 1 and 4. The suit was filed against the Lonavla City Municipality as defendant No. 1, and the President of the City Municipality as defendant No. 2. The relief asked for was a permanent injunction against the City Municipality not to collect the taxes on the basis of the new list, on the ground that their objections had not been heard and disposed of by a Standing Committee as required under Section 81, and that defendant No. 2 disposed of those objections without any authority. The procedure, therefore, was alleged to be illegal, and not such as could authorise the recovery of the taxes.2. Various issues were raised as to the maintainability of the suit, five of which were disposed of as preliminary issues, which I will refer to later.3. The main issues, which were Nos. 7 and 8, viz., 'Whether the Pr...
Tag this Judgment!The Saundatti Yellama Municipality Vs. Shripadbhat Seshbhat Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom132; (1933)35BOMLR163
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Belgaum, who confirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bail-Hongal. The plaintiff-Municipality sue defendant No. 1 (with defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as sureties) for the balance of a sum of Rs. 1,076-13-0 which he had to pay under a contract in the form of a lease dated March 20, 1926, (Exhibit 16), by which the Municipality let to the defendant for the sum of Us. 4,500 the right of recovering jakat from March 15, 1926, until October 6, 1926, from all pilgrims to Shree Yellamma Devi, vehicles and animals. Then, in the contract the rates to be charged on persons, vehicles and animals are specified. The first charge is on every person above five years of age one anna and the other charges are on animals and vehicles. The defendant paid part of the consideration, but he has not paid the last instalment for which the Municipality now sue.2. The defence of the defendant is that it was beyond the power of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›