Mumbai Court July 1932 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.
Emperor Vs. Balkrishna Hari Phansalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1523
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we have already held that we possess powers of superintendence. But the exercise of a power of superintendence is not the same thing as the hearing of an appeal. We have, I think, a discretion to revise or Bet aside any conviction under our powers of superintendence; but we must exercise our discretion on judicial grounds, and only interfere if considerations of justice require us to do so. It is suggested in this case that the order was illegal for this reason. The order was originally made by the District Magistrate ofSholapur, and it is an order which in terms has to be carried out within the District of Sholapur. But the order was served on the accused when he was in jail at Bijapur. The rights of the District Magistrate arise in this way. Section 57 of the Ordinance authorises the Local Government to invest the DistrictMagistrate with the powers of the Local Government under Sub-section of Section 4, and in pursuance of that authority the Lo...
Jhaverbhai Hathibhai Patel Vs. Kabhai Becher Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom42; (1932)34BOMLR1512
Patkar, J.1. The appellant is the purchaser from one Bhavan Girdhar, whose father and guardian had transferred the property to the defendants' predecessor-in-title in February 1912. BhavanGirdhar attained majority on August 11, 1923, and sold the property to the appellant in 1925. The present suit was brought by the appellant and BhavanGirdhar. It appears that Bhavan Girdhar who was plaintiff No. 2 made an application to withdraw from the suit in August 1926, and without any objection on the part of the appellant he was allowed to withdraw from the suit, After withdrawal by plaintiff No. 2 from the suit a preliminary question was raised for argument as to whether the suit by the assignee, the appellant, was within time. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. On appeal, the learned District Judge agreed with the view of the lower Court.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit which was originally filed was within time, a...
Gorakhram Sadhuram Vs. Pirozshah Maneckji Javeri (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom142; (1933)35BOMLR101
Wadia, J.1. [His Lordship referred to the facts of the case and proceeded :] At the hearing of the summons it was argued before me on behalf of Messrs, Hiralal & Co. that if this Rule (559) was literally and strictly construed in every case, it may sometimes lead to an abuse of the process of the Court. On the other hand, counsel for defendants Nos. 5 and 6 argued that the rule was clear and specific, as it referred to ' all costs whatever attending the taxation ', and that there was no distinction between the provisional taxation of the bill in the office before warrant for taxation was issued, in which one-sixth of the bill was already knocked off, and the taxation by the Taxing Master himself. In support of his contention counsel relied on Rule 44 of the taxing rules of the High Court of Calcutta, the first part of which is in almost the same terms as Rule 559 of the Bombay High Court Rules, but in Rule 44 of the Calcutta High Court there is a proviso ' that the Taxing officer shall...
Haji Mohammad Afzal Khan Vs. Malik Abdul Rahman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. The questions involved in this appeal relate to the effect of a partition of joint properties effected by a decree, where the decree is one made on an award, on a prior mortgage and a prior attachment of the share of one of the co-owners in some of the properties.2. Haji Malik Rahman, a Muhammadan, died in or about 1910, leaving a will dated June 12, 1910, whereby be devised certain immovable properties to his son Malik Mohib Ali, who is the third respondent in this appeal, and his two grandsons Sardar Ali and Sabz Ali in three equal shares. On the death of Haji Malik Rahman, the third respondent entered into possession of the properties and recovered the rents and profits thereof on behalf of the family. Sabz Ali died in 1914 leaving two children, who are the first and second respondents in this appeal and on his death his one-third share in the above-mentioned properties passed to them. The First and second respondents were both minors at the date of their father'...
Gorakhram Sadhuram Vs. Pirozsha Maneckji Javeri (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom92; (1933)35BOMLR93
Wadia, J.1. [After setting out facts as above his Lordship continued:] Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 took three objections to the taxation of the bill of costs of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendants Nos. 5 and 6 as between attorney and client. The first objection was that the Taxing Master was wrong in allowing charges for briefs and fees for the hearing and final disposal of the suit to two sets of counsel, one set appearing for defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and another appearing for defendants Nos. 5 and 6, though all were represented by the same firm of solicitors, Messrs Hiralal and Co. The second objection related to the amount of refresher payable to Mr. Gharekhan, advocate, who was a junior counsel in the case. At first Mr. Setalvad was briefed with Mr. Varma for defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. Taraporewala with Mr. Gharekhan for defendants Nos. 5 and 6, but before the hearing commenced a change was effected by asking Mr. Taraporewala and Mr. Varma to appear for defendants Nos. 1 and 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›