Mumbai Court January 1936 Judgments
Hem Singh Vs. Mahant Basant Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR479
George Rankin, J.1. These three appeals concern a religious institution in Manak in the Lahore district, and the buildings, lands and other property belonging thereto. The first appeal, No. 10, is brought by the plaintiffs in a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code to remove the defendant Basant Das from the office of mahant or custodian of the institution upon the grounds of misconduct and mismanagement. The learned Subordinate Judge found for the plaintiffs and made an order removing Basant Das and appointing another custodian. The High Court at Lahore set aside this decree and dismissed the suit. No question or difficulty arises as to the competence of this appeal, but the defendant, Basant Das, having died since the High Court's decree, the appeal has not been pressed.2. Appeals Nos. 108 and 109 are brought from two decrees of the High Court reversing the decision of a tribunal appointed under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (Punjab Act VIII of 1925). The tribunal had enq...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs. Badri Lal Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR484
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Board of Revenue for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh confirming the appellate judgment and decree of the Court of the Commissioner of the Benares Division, which had decreed the plaintiffs' suit reversing the judgment of the Court of the Collector of Mirzapur which had dismissed the suit.2. The Robertsgang tahsil of the Mirzapur District in which the property is situated is a scheduled district under the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, and, under the rules for the administration of civil justice made pursuant to that Act, the Court of the Collector has power to try and determine suits of every description and is to be considered as the District and principal Court of original jurisdiction, and the Court of the Commissioner of Benares as the highest Court of Appeal. It is, however, provided by Rule 9 as follows :-It shall be in the power of the Local Government to refer to the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Rudrappa Regal Vs. Ramaya Rajana Pali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom280; (1936)38BOMLR562
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a first appeal in execution from a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur. The appeal originally came before me, but I directed it to be heard by a bench of three Judges, because I felt doubtful whether the decision in Rudrappa v. Chanbasappa (1923) 26 Bom. L.R. 153, on which the learned advocate for the appellants relied, was rightly decided. On the present occasion further authorities have been referred to. The point which arises is a very short one and is this : Where a decree has been passed ex parte in a mortgage suit for sale of the mortgaged property and payment of the proceeds to the mortgagee, is the defendant entitled in execution to set up his status as an agriculturist and to ask for a modification of the decree by directing payment by instalments, and consequential alterations in the order for sale 2. The facts of the case are quite short. The suit is a suit on a mortgage bond and the preliminary decree was made ex part...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Vaman Kharkar Vs. Sakharam Habaji Mestry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom311; (1936)38BOMLR589
Divatia, J.1. This application raises an important question relating to the construction of Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, on which there has been a difference of opinion in the Indian High Courts and on which there is no authority of this Court. The point arises in this way. A decree directing a sale of an immoveable property was passed and the decree-holder applied to execute the decree. It appears that in the proclamation of sale, a mortgage existing on that property was not disclosed and the property was purchased by the auction-purchaser without the knowledge that the property had been previously mortgaged. Then the auction-purchaser filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, to set aside the sale. That rule runs thus :Where any immoveable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR698
Blanesburgh, J.1. Their Lordships desire to in this case the very exceptional circumstances in which alone they will humbly advise His Majesty to grant leave to appeal in a criminal case. They would not have it supposed that the advice which they propose to tender to His Majesty in this case indicates any weakening on their part of the most salutary judicial rule which prevents this Board from entertaining such applications, the Board not being a Court of Criminal Appeal, except in the most exceptional circumstances. What actuates the Board in advising His Majesty to grant leave to appeal in this instance is that it appears that with reference to a section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is of vital importance to accused persons, there has been a difference of opinion in the High Courts of India which, however it be resolved, ought to be resolved so that in the future there will be no doubt as to the law declared by that section. It is not a case of a view being taken by the H...
Tag this Judgment!Freny Barjorji Engnieer Vs. Shapurji Kekobad Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom392; (1937)39BOMLR486
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant to recover 3. sum of Rs. 10,000 or such other sum as to the Court may seem adequate for damages for breach of promise of marriage, and a further sum of Rs. 426 for moneys spent and expenses incurred at the time of her betrothal with the defendant and subsequent thereto. Plaintiff was engaged to be married to the defendant on or about March 21, 1934, when she was about seventeen years old, and the suit was originally filed by her through her mother as next friend. Thereafter she attained the age of eighteen, and the next friend was discharged, and the plaint was re-declared by the plaintiff personally. Defendant denies liability on the ground that the agreement of marriage is void and unenforceable in law, as the plaintiff was admittedly a minor at the date of that agreement. He denies liability also on the ground that his consent to the agreement was obtained by certain false and fraudulent representations alleged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyaneshwar Krishna Sambhus Vs. Anant Vasudeo Avachat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom290
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the 1st Class Subordinate Judge, Poona, allowing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration, injunction and the possession of certain property. The material facts are as follows: One Bhau Mahadev, a resident of Ale, Junnar taluka, had altogether nine sons and seven daughters; but the sons had all died by 1902; the last two remaining sons Trimbak and Atmaram died in that year. Defendant 13 is Trimbak's widow and defendant 12 is Atmaram's widow. Trimbak had a son 'Vishnu, who died of plague in 1917 leaving a widow Gitabai, who is defendant 14. Gitabai was pregnant at the time of her husband's death, but this fact was not known. On 19th January 1918, Bhau made a will by which he bequeathed all his property to Anant, the plaintiff, who is the son of Bhau's daughter Man-karnika. On 8th June 1918, Gitabai gave birth to a posthumous son Dny neshwar, who is defendant 1. As the birth of this son made the will inoperative, Bhau, on 22nd July 1918, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhana Makan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR432
Divatia, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5 under Rule 12 framed under Section 22(6) of the Bombay City Police Act. That section empowers the Commissioner of Police to make rules, among others, for regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places, and the use of streets and public places by persons riding, driving, cycling, walking or leading or accompanying cattle, so as to prevent danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public, and Rule 12 framed under this section runs thus :-No person shall occupy any portion of any street so as to cause obstruction to traffic or inconvenience to the public.2. The facts shortly are that, according to the prosecution case, the petitioner, who is a chauffeur, had kept his car near the kerb on the Kalbadevi Road at some point between the Princess Street and Dhobi Talao, and that he had thereby caused obstruction to the traffic by occupying a portion of the public street. The learned Hon...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Yeshwant Prabhu Desai Vs. Ghanashyam Vithal Tirwadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR511
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case have sued for possession of the property in suit and for minor reliefs on the strength of a so-called razinama executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 in May, 1917. Plaintiff No. 1 at the time of the execution of this deed was the managing khot of a share of a certain village, and defendant No. 1 was one of the occupants. It appears that defendant No. 1 was heavily in arrears with his rent and that he executed the deed in question to relieve himself from further liability. The plaintiffs have now sued him on the strength of that deed, but are met by the contentions (1) that the deed is invalid as a razinama, not being made with the consent of the managing khot or the body of khots as required by Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act, (2) that in any event the document cannot be binding upon the share of defendant No. 2, who was separated from defendant No. 1, and (3) that the suit is barred by Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Bhana Makan Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom256; 163Ind.Cas.847
Divatia, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5 under Rule 12 framed under Section 22(6), Bombay City Police Act. Tnat section empowers the Commissioner of Police to make rules, among others, for regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places, and the use of streets and public places by persons riding, driving, cycling, walking cr leading or accompanying cattle, so as to prevent danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public, and Rule 12 framed under this section runs thus:No person shall occupy any portion of any street so as to cause obstruction to traffic or inconvenience to-the public.2. The facts shortly are that, according to the prosecution case, the petitioner, who is a chauffeur, had kept his car near the kerb on the Kalbadevi Read at some point between the Princess Street and Dhobi Talao, and that he had thereby caused obstruction to the traffic by occupying a portion of the public street. The learned Honorary Ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »