Mumbai Court January 1935 Judgments
Bakor Moti Pagi Vs. Ishvar Moti Thakor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom257; (1935)37BOMLR372
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which raises two points of law. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note for Rs. 201, of which Rs. 75 was due under a decree which he had obtained, and the balance of Rs. 126 was due by other means which had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the decree. The promissory note provided for payment of interest at twelve per cent., although under the decree the rate was six per cent. The first defence set up is that the promissory note is void under Section 13, Clause (c), of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. At the time when the suit was filed, Section 13, Clause (c), provided in effect that when the Court inquires into the history and merits of a case under Section 12, it shall open the account between the parties from the commencement of the transactions, and in taking that account 'in the account of principal there shall not be debited to the debtor any money which he may ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Wodeyar Vs. Ganapati Madhuling Dixit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom371; (1935)37BOMLR584; 158Ind.Cas.796
Rangnekar, J.1. There is an ancient temple known as the temple of Madhukeshwar situated at Banvasi in the taluka of Sirsi in the District of Kanara.2. There is no authentic record to show when the temple was built or the deity therein was installed or who were its early devotees, nor for the purpose of showing how and by whom the temple was endowed.3. From such records as were available to the learned Subordinate Judge, he found that that was a Brahmin settlement, that the worship of the God and other religious rites and sacrifices were principally performed by the Brahmins, that the idol originally was founded by Brahmins and the temple itself was originally built by Brahmins.4. The temple is admittedly a public Hindu temple and at present enjoys an annual Government grant of Rs. 4,000 and odd and has also a cash allowance of a small sum made by Sonda kings who admittedly at some period or other were connected with the temple.5. There is no evidence to show how the temple was managed ...
Tag this Judgment!Union Benefit Guarantee Co. Ltd. Vs. Thakorlal P. Thakor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom114
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a libel action. Plaintiffs are a private limited company doing provident insurance business, and have filed this suit to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 50,000 for damages for injury to its credit and reputation and in the way of its business by reason of certain statements which according to them, were falsely and maliciously written and published or caused to be written and published by the defendants, and which the plaintiffs say are defamatory of them. Defendants are all residents of Ahmedabad, and in or about June 1931, they formed themselves into a committee, called the Provident Society Vigilance Committee, in order to make a report to another committee, called the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, on the working of provident societies and of what are called 'Free Insurance Companies' in the Bombay Presidency. The committee has also been described as the Free Insurance Vigilance Committee. All the defendants except defendant 5...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Chandrika Prasada Vs. Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR390
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer-Merwara in a suit in which the respondents, the railway company, sought to recover certain land and buildings thereon in the possession of the appellant. Before the Subordinate Judge the railway company obtained an order for possession on certain terms which involved the payment to the appellant of a sum of Rs. 2,446-8-0. On appeal, that order was reversed and the suit was dismissed by the District Judge. A further appeal was taken to the Judicial Commissioner when, in its turn, the judgment of the District Judge was reversed and an order for possession was made on terms which involved payment to the appellant of a sum of 5,000 rupees.2. The circumstances of the case are unusual and are shortly these. In 1891 the railway company, who occupy certain Government land for the purposes of their railways, formulated and put into operation a scheme for housing certain of their employees on part of such land. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Sitabai Rambhau MaraThe Vs. Gangadhar Dhanram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom331; (1935)37BOMLR489; 159Ind.Cas.358
Rangnekar, J.1. The appellant challenges a sale of her property by the Court in execution of a mortgage-decree against her in favour of respondent No. 2, on two grounds, the first ground being, that, pending the execution, the judgment-creditor had no subsisting interest left in him to continue the execution proceedings by reason of his having assigned the decree in favour of one Mr. Deshmukh, his pleader. The second ground, on which the sale is impeached, is, that there was a material irregularity in publishing the sale, that the value of the property was hot fairly and accurately stated in the proclamation issued by the Court, and that it has resulted in a substantial injury to her.2. A few dates, which are material in this case, may now be stated. The darkhast for sale in the execution of the decree was filed in March, 1931 ; and the judgment-creditor stated therein that the property mortgaged, which consisted of a house having four storeys, situate in a prominent locality in Jalgao...
Tag this Judgment!Walchand Molaji Marwadi Vs. Charles A. Williams
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom396; (1935)37BOMLR494; 159Ind.Cas.144
Rangnekar, J.1. This second appeal raises a point of considerable importance. The facts, which give rise to the question which we have to decide, are, briefly, as follows.2. The first respondent was employed in the Ammunition Factory at Kirkee. The second respondent and some others had obtained a money-decree against him. In execution of that decree, the salary of the first respondent was attached, and one instalment of Rs. 125 was paid in Court as a result thereof. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 retired from his service. He had subscribed to the provident fund, which, it is common ground, was Government provident fund, and had a sum of Rs. 4,540 standing to his credit in that fund-That amount was paid to him on September 1, 1931. Previous to that, however, he was adjudicated an insolvent on July 18, 1931 ; and, it is clear that, under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, his estate had vested in the receiver. The appellant was, admittedly, one of his creditors ; and he...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarao Anandrao Bargal Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom265; (1935)37BOMLR349; 159Ind.Cas.518
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh, which raises a question under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The lands in suit were seven survey numbers, four of which were in the possession of a man named Keahav, another was in the possession of a man named Balaji, and the remaining two were in the possession of a man named Yeshvant. The plaintiff is the inamdar of the village in which the survey numbers are situate, and he is entitled both to the land revenue and the, soil. In the year 1917 the three persons in occupation of the lands in suit were alleged to have been concerned in a criminal offence, and they absconded. Proclamations were issued, and the survey numbers were eventually attached and forfeited under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order of forfeiture being dated November 28, 1924. The plaintiff then applied to the Collector for restoration to himself of the suit lands on the basis that the occupi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jesingbhai Chhaganlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR184
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The applicant was convicted under Section 186 (2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (XVIII of 1925), which provides that if it be shown to the satisfaction of the standing committee that certain acts have been done, the standing committee may by notice require the owner or occupier of the properties concerned to take certain action, and if the action is not taken, the owner or occupier may be prosecuted. In the present case a notice under the section was served upon the applicant complaining of an act which falls within Sub-section (r) of Section 186 (1), and that notice was served by or at the instance of the sanitary committee and not the standing committee which is the committee named in the section, and on that ground it is contended that the conviction is invalid. Section 37 of the Act provides for the appointment of a standing committee and Sub-section (2) en...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Abdul Razaak Vs. Jamala Bint Mehdi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom234; (1935)37BOMLR370
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a civil reference by the District and Sessions Judge of Aden under Section 8 of Regulation VI of 1933 (Aden) in a suit pending before him. That section provides :-(1) Where, before or on the hearing by the District Judge of a suit or an appeal in which suit or appeal the decree is not subject to appeal, or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises on which the District Judge entertains reasonable doubt, the District Judge may either of his own motion or on the application of any of the parties draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained and refer such statement with his own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.2. Accordingly the learned District Judge has made this reference. The suit which has given rise to this reference was brought by the nephews of one Idriss Abdul Kadir against his widow. Idriss Abdul Kadir wa...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Abdul Razak Haji Mahomed Vs. Haji Adam Haji Usman Noorani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom367; (1935)37BOMLR603; 159Ind.Cas.650
Blackwell, J.1. The plaintiff is a member of the Cutchi-Memon Mahomedan Community of Bombay. The first defendant is and was at all material times the president of the managing committee of the jamat and of the jamat. The other defendants were at all material times members of the managing committee. The defendants are sued for themselves and as representing the jamat. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that a resolution of the jamat passed on January 15, 1933, excommunicating him is void and that he is and continues to be a member of the jamat and entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges of a member of the jamat, for an injunction to restrain the defendants and the jamat from obstructing the plaintiff from exercising his rights and privileges, and for damages.2. The sixth defendant is dead, and by consent his name was struck off. Mr. Taraporewala, who appeared for the other defendants, raised issues on behalf of all of them other than the second and third defendants, and sai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »