Mumbai Court February 1933 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.
The Assistant Development Officer Vs. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom361; (1933)35BOMLR763
Broomfield, J.1. These are connected appeals from the judgment of the Assistant Judge of Thana in nineteen references under the Land Acquisition Act arising out of the compulsory acquisition of lands in Kurla. The lands were notified for acquisition under various notifications between January 17, 1922, and January 12, 1923. But the bulk of them, more than 18 acres, were included in the notifications of January 17 and 19, 1922, those subsequently notified being only about 1 1/2 acres. The acquisition was carried out by Government as part of a scheme for the development of the Bombay suburban area, the special object in this case being the construction of a light railway linking up Kurla with Andheri. There has been some discussion as to whether Kurla should properly be described as an industrial suburb or a slum area, but nothing much seems to turn on this. It appears that it is not or was not at the material time a very attractive or sanitary place of residence, but it was undoubtedly ...
Dahyabhai Nathabhai Vs. Tanganio Machhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom233; (1933)35BOMLR484
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Surat tinder Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he asks us to set aside an order made by the First Class Magistrate of Mandvi by which he ordered the complainant to pay compensation of Rs. 30 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He recommends that we should set that order aside. The complaint in question was for offences under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, charging the two accused with criminal trespass. According to the learned Magistrate's judgment the case came on for hearing on July 20, 1932, when the complainant's examination-in-chief was completed and the cross-examination was reserved. There were then various adjournments, and ultimately on August 26, the complainant made an application stating that the matter had been entrusted for arbitration and asking for a long adjournment with view to the case...
Panaji Girdharlal Vs. Ratanchand Hajarimal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom364; (1933)35BOMLR620
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of Mr. Justice Madgavkar given in second appeal, and the appeal raises a question of some importance in connection with the law of execution. The plaintiff' got a judgment for a sum of Rs. 1,359 and for costs of the suit and interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from the date of the filing of the suit. In the year 1924 the plaintiff filed a darkhast asking for payment of the principal sums awarded by the decree and costs. The form of the application follows form 6 in appendix E to the schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. It states in paragraph 7, in accordance with the requirements of Order XXI, Rule 11 (2) (g), that the claim in suit is Rs. 1,359 to be paid to the plaintiff and costs and interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum from the date of filing of the suit. Then in column 8 it shows what costs have been awarded and totals up those costs, with the sum of Rs. 1,359, as amounting t...
Chhotalal Natharam Pandya Vs. Bai Jayagavri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom347; (1933)35BOMLR606
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the judgment of the First Glass Subordinate Judge of Broach. It appears that in 1911 the defendant entered into a contract with one Devshankar to perform the latter's duties as priest in certain villages and to share the emoluments from those services. The actual agreement is Exhibit 27 and it is there provided that the defendant and another man who was in the same position were to work as long as Devshankar pleased as his gumastas and they undertook to work for a minimum term of five years. Devshankar died in 1927 and the plaintiff is his widow. She sues the defendant for the half share of emoluments received in the years 1929 and 1930, that is, since the death of Devshankar.2. Now, it is perfectly plain that the original contract came to an end, at the latest on the death of Devshankar, because it is to endure only during his will. Therefore if the widow is entitled to recover these sums, as the learned Judge has held, it mu...
Venubai Guracharya Savadatti Vs. Damodar Vyasrao Sondur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom396; (1933)35BOMLR609
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment in second appeal given by Mr. Justice Barlee, and the case raises a question of procedure. The material facts are that in 1906 there was an award decree between a mortgagor and a mortgagee under which two survey numbers had to be handed back to the mortgagor on payment of a sum of Rs. 3,700 before April 1927. The mortgagor died in 1924, and the present appellant is his widow, and claims to be his legal personal representative. She paid the amount due under the mortgage by the due date and filed darkhast proceedings claiming to recover the two survey numbers from the mortgagee or his representatives. The respondent on the present appeal also claimed to be the legal personal representative of the mortgagor, and on August 24, 1927, he made an application in the darkhast proceedings asking that the question regarding the rights of the legal representative should be decided if possible by taking legal evidence or th...
Emperor Vs. W.M. Rittoms
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR483
John Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused applies in revision and asks us to interfere with his conviction under Rule 19 (1) of the Bombay-Motor Vehicles Rules, 1915. That rule provides :-A motor vehicle shall be driven in accordance with the rules of the road which require a vehicle to keep on the left except when passing horses and other vehicles going in the same direction which should be passed on the right and provided that it should ordinarily pass a tramcar on the left or near side whether it be going in the same or contrary direction.2. In the present case a tramcar normally proceeding in the same direction as the car which the accused was driving was temporarily stationary and people were either getting in or alighting and therefore made it difficult for the accused to pass the car on the near side. Although the rule refers to a tramcar whether it be going in the same or in the contrary direction, I think those latter words are not exhaustive and that the rule covers a tr...
Pauline D'souza Vs. Cassamalli Jairajbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom465; (1933)35BOMLR1007; 147Ind.Cas.354
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 4,499-8-0 for the loss and damage caused by the destruction of a Taxi Ford Car No. Y 899 on July 21, 1926. The first plaintiff says in the plaint that she was the owner of the car, and that it was insured with the second plaintiff company. The defendant is the owner of a building called 'Khalakdina Terrace' situate at Gowalia Tank Road, Bombay, and on the day in question a portion of the terrace of the said building consisting of an ornamental structure made of Porebunder stone and resting over the parapet wall on the southern side of the building gave way and fell on the said car which was stationary at the stand on Tejpal Road to the south of the building. The car was completely destroyed, and the driver received serious injuries to which he ultimately succumbed. The plaintiffs contend that the portion of the terrace fell down owing to the defendant's negligence, and that he is liable in...
Gummidelli Anantapadmanabhaswami Vs. the Official Receiver of Secunder ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR747
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated October 2, 1930, which set aside a judgment and order dated April 23, 1929, made by the same Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction.2. The appellant is in right of a money decree for Rs. 53,230-9-0 dated June 15, 1926, made in the Bombay High Court in favour of the appellant's father against three persons, who may be conveniently referred to as the judgment debtors. At that time the judgment debtors were the plaintiffs in a suit then pending in the Madras High Court for partition of certain joint family property between the plaintiffs' and the defendants' branches of the family. The Madras partition suit had been instituted in 1922, and on December 5, 1922, a preliminary decree by consent had been made, declaring inter alia certain properties and business assets involved in the suit to be the exclusive properties of the plaintiffs' branch and directing certain interim payments of money to...
Lingangouda Gurangouda Hiregaudar Vs. Sangangouda Bapugouda Hiregaudar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom386; (1933)35BOMLR779; 145Ind.Cas.780
Broombfield, J.1. This is an appeal in forma pauperis from a decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition and possession of a half share in property alleged to be joint family property of plaintiff and defendants.2. The relationship of the parties was a matter of contest in the trial Court, the defendants alleging that the plaintiff is not even their kinsman. But it has been held (and is not now disputed) that the parties are bhaubands descended from a common ancestor, Venkanagawda, the defendants through his first wife and the plaintiff through his second wife. There is a genealogical table given in the judgment of the trial Court.3. The property in suit is valuable, consisting of patilki watan in two villages, Arshanagodi and Benkankop, the kulkarni watan in Benkankop and other lands in those and two other villages. The total area is roughly 1,000 acres producing an income of over Us. 8000 a year. The plaintiff is in posse...
Keshavlal Sakhidas Sanghani Vs. Amarchand Somchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom398; (1933)35BOMLR630
Patkar, J.1. The property in suit belonged to one Somchand, the father of the minor plaintiff. After Somchand's death, the mother of the plaintiff Amrutbai entered into an agreement to sell the property in suit for Rs. 10,251 to defendant No. 2, the appellant, in 1917, and applied to the High Court on the Original Side in February 1918 to be appointed guardian of her minor son, the plaintiff Amarchand, of his person and property. In March 1918, she was appointed guardian of the person and property, and permission was granted to her to complete the agreement. In April 1918, a sale deed, Exhibit 64, was executed by her in favour of defendant No. 2. He carried out improvements and also fought out a litigation in respect of the land. After the death of the plaintiff's mother, the paternal uncle of the minor plaintiff brought a suit on the Original Side of the High Court in 1924 for setting aside the appointment of the mother as guardian and for rescission of the agreement of sale, and mesn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »