Mumbai Court February 1934 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.
Krishnarao Raghunath Yardi Vs. Ghaman Ghama Valad Chima
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1074
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These appeals which have been heard together arise out of two suits Nos. 84 and 85 of 1925 filed by the appellant against the respondents to recover possession of certain lands leased to them by him. The lands belonged originally to two brothers Gopal and Martand, sons of one Girmaji Yardi and distant cousins of the appellant. Suit No. 84 related to the lands which had originally belonged to Martand, and suit No. 85 to those which had belonged to Gopal. The history of the lands in the two suits is different, and it is, therefore, necessary to state the facts with regard to each separately.2. Martand had mortgaged his entire separated half share to his brother Gopal on October 27, 1896, by a possessory mortgage. Within a month after this, on November 18, 1896, he sold his rights in the lands to the appellant's brother Ganesh Raghunath Yardi by a sale-deed (exhibit 84). In March, 1901, Ganesh mortgaged the lands to respondent No. 1 and his brother Sadu and to Rakhma, the...
Krishnarao Raghunath Yardi Vs. Ghamon Ghama Valad Chima
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom144; 155Ind.Cas.249
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These appeals which have been heard together arise out of two Suits Nos. 84 and 85 of 1925 filed by the appellant against the respondents to recover possession of certain lands leased to them by him. The lands belonged originally to two brothers Gopal and Martand, sons of one Girmaji Yardi and distant cousins of the appellant. Suit No. 84 related to the lands which had originally belonged to Martand, and Suit No. 85 to those which had belonged to Gopal. The history of the lands in the two suits is different, and it is therefore necessary to state the facts with regard to each separately.2. Martand had mortgaged his entire separated half share to his brother Gopal on October 27,1896, by a possessory mortgage. Within a month after this, on November 18,1896, he sold his rights in the lands to the appellant's brother Ganesh Raghunath Yardi by a sale-deed (Ex.84). In March 1901, Ganesh mortgaged the lands to respondent No. 1 and his brother Sadu and to Rakhma, the father of...
The Municipal Commissioner of Bombay Vs. Akberali Jaferali Hirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom462(1); (1934)36BOMLR990
Kania, J.1. This suit is filed by the Municipality of Bombay to recover from the defendant, who is the owner of a certain property within the Bombay Municipal area, water-tax and halalkhor-tax for the periods mentioned in the plaint. The only defence urged on behalf of the defendant is that the Municipality having cut off the service pipe from January 7, 1932, he is not liable to pay the taxes. It is admitted by the defendant that the supply was so cut off by the Municipality because he failed to pay the water and halalkhor taxes as shown in the municipal bills served on him.2. Under Section 140 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, the plaintiffs are entitled to levy water-tax and halalkhor-tax. Under Section 141 it is provided:.water-tax shall be levied only in respect of premises-(a) to which a private water-supply is furnished from, or which are connected by means of communication-pipes with, any municipal water-works; or(b) which are situated in a portion of the city in which...
Emperor Vs. Jaffar Cassum Moosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom212; (1934)36BOMLR433
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application in which the accused takes two purely technical points against his conviction. He was convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. It appears from the record that one Dawood Karamalli appeared as the constituted attorney of the accused and was allowed to appear for him in Court, that permission being given under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first point taken is that the Magistrate ought to have insisted on the accused appearing in person in order that he might be questioned under Section 342 of the Code, but, in my opinion, where the Magistrate exercises the power given to him by Section 205 of dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused and permits him to appear by his pleader, the Magistrate is not bound to question the accused personally. Section 342 must be read subject to the provisions of Section 205. That has been held...
Emperor Vs. Jalal Dhondibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom211; (1934)36BOMLR435
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Ahmednagar. The accused were tried by the Magistrate, Second Class, Kopargaon, for an offence of mischief, and they were convicted under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 each, while accused No. 3 was released under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, he quashed the proceedings on the ground that as one of the appellants, accused No. 3, was a juvenile under fifteen years of age, the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try him, having regard to the provisions of Section 29B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned District Magistrate is of opinion that the view of the Sub-divisional Magistrate is wrong, and that the trial was not illegal, and he has referred the matter to us for orders. The view of the District Magistrate is in accordance with Emperor v. Natvarlal (1930) 33 Bom. L.R. 3...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Parashram Madhavrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR551
Russell, J.1. In the year 1704 the Maharajah of Satara by sanad confirmed to an ancestor of the plaintiff the right in perpetuity to collect the revenue of two divisions (viz., Kharepatan and Salshi), each comprising various villages within its boundaries. In regard to Kharepatan the remuneration was fixed at two per cent. of the Government assessment. In regard to Salshi the percentage was not expressly mentioned in the grant, but the rights in respect of Salshi were treated as in all respects upon the same footing as the rights in respect of Kharepatan and Salshi are situate in the talukas of Devgad and Malvan, of the Ratnagiri district.2. The British Government acquired this territory in 1817 and for many years thereafter the ancestors of the plaintiff and the other hereditary officers were continued in the enjoyment of their offices and emoluments.3. Later on, the Government desired to supersede the hereditary officers, and in or about the year 1865 an offer of a commutation settle...
Kilachand Devchand and Co. Vs. Ajodhyaprasad Sukhanand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom452; (1934)36BOMLR992
Kania, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs calling upon defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one Shamlal Gomatwalla to show cause why they should not be committed to jail for having committed contempt of this Court by interfering with the possession of the receiver, Mr. Nandlal Kilachand, and having assaulted his men, or caused them to be assaulted, at the place commonly known as the Sukhanand Shiamlal Ginning and Pressing Factory at Debai on November 21, 1933. Shamlal Gomatvalla is not a party to this suit, Mr. Nandlal Kilachand was appointed a receiver in this suit under a consent order made by this Court on June 29, 1933. It is alleged that to the knowledge of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the said Shamlal, the receiver had taken possession of the Ginning and Pressing Factory, and, thereafter, the three persons mentioned above assaulted the receiver's men and ousted them.2. On behalf of the respondents four preliminary objections have been taken to this notice of motion...
Gurpadappa Dodappa Hasibi Vs. Karveerappa Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom241; (1934)36BOMLR523
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. It appears that on April 24, 1931, a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000 payable by annual instalments of Rs. 1,500, the first instalment being due on July 31, 1931, and there was a default clause making the whole amount payable, if default was made in payment of any one instalment. Then the amount due was charged on certain immoveable property of the defendants. That decree was passed on an award made in arbitration proceedings between the parties. Default was made under the decree, and, thereupon, the plaintiff filed a darkhast asking for execution by sale of the property charged. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed execution and directed issue of sale proclamation and warrant, and from that order this appeal is brought.2. It is said, in the first place, that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in not granting to the appellant an adjournment in or...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Faredoon Jijibhai Divecha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom434; (1934)36BOMLR761
Divatia, J.1. These four companion appeals have been filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council, who was the principal defendant in each suit, and the original plaintiff is the principal respondent in each appeal. The plaintiff is the khot or lessee to whose ancestor the village of Mahul, situated in Trombay in the island of Salsette, forming part of the district of Thana, had been granted by the British Government, part in inam and the remainder in permanent khoti, i. e., lease subject to certain conditions stated in a sanad or a kowl dated April 20, 1831. It is this document which is the most important one in all the appeals, the decision of which mainly turns on the construction of its terms. Of these four appeals, First Appeals Nos. 137 and 139 of 1927 arise from two suits filed in 1922 by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was entitled to take royalty in respect of removal of earth, stone, murum and cutting of teak trees in certain lands of the village in virtue of ...
Kamta Singh Vs. Chaturbhuj Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR547
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit in which the purchasers of part of the lands comprised in a mortgage, having bought subject to the mortgage and having paid off the mortgage debt, claim contribution from persons owning other parts of the lands subject to such mortgage.2. The appellants before their Lordships are the plaintiffs in the suit seeking contribution, while such of the respondents as are represented before their Lordships (hereafter referred to as the respondents) are the persons from whom contribution is claimed.3. The suit was begun in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr and was taken on appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. In both Courts below the appellants failed.4. The history of the case begins with a mortgage dated December 6, 1905, made by or on behalf of a joint Hindu family of part of the raiyati holding of such family containing about four hundred and fifty-four acres, and also of shares in certain proprietary lands.5. The mortgage dee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »