Mumbai Court March 1936 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.
Narendrabhai Sarabhai Hatheesing Vs. Chinubhai Manibhai Seth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom314; (1936)38BOMLR571
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia on a notice of motion to commit defendant No. 1 for breach of an undertaking given to the Court and embodied in an order of the Court dated April 19, 1933. The learned Judge held that no breach of the order was proved which justified him in committing the defendant to prison; he did not dismiss the motion with costs, but made no order on the motion, and left each side to pay its own costs. From that order the appeal is brought.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, and that question turns upon whether the order appealed from is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This Court has always acted upon the definition of ' judgment' given by the Calcutta High Court in the case of The Justices o) the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Company (1872) 8 Beng. L.R. 433 : 17 W. R. 364, where Couch C. J. said (p. 452) :-We think that ' judgment' in Clause 15 means a decisio...
Narendra Bhai Sarabhai Hatheesing and ors. Vs. Chinubhai Manibhai Seth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.335
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by B.J. Wadia, J. on a notice of motion to commit defendant No. 1 for breach of an undertaking given to the Court and embodied in an order of the Court, dated April 19, 1933. The learned Judge held that no breach of the order was proved which justified him in committing the, defendant to prison; he did not dismiss the motion with costs', but made no order on the motion, and left each side to pay its own costs. From that order the appeal is brought. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, and that question turns upon whether the order appealed from is a judgment within Clause 15. Letters Patent. This Court has always acted upon the definition of 'judgment' given by the Calcutta High Court in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Co. 8 BLR 433 : 17 WR 364, where Couch, C.J., said (p. 452 Page of 8 B.L.R. -[Ed.]):We think that 'judgment' in Clause 15 means a decision which affects the merits of the qu...
Nrisingha Charan Nandy Choudhry Vs. Rajniti Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR768
Shadi Lal, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted in the Court of the Settlement Officer of the Sonthal Parganas, to enforce two mortgages comprising landed property, the major portion of which was situated in the Sonthal Parganas, and the remainder in the Gaya district. The plaintiffs, who were the mortgagees, submitted with their plaint an application to the Settlement Officer asking him to transfer the suit for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Gaya; and on this application he transferred the suit to the District Judge of Gaya, who transferred it to the Subordinate Judge of Gaya. When the case came on for hearing before the Subordinate Judge, the defendants challenged his jurisdiction to entertain the suit; but their objection was overruled, not only by the trial Judge, but also by the High Court at Patna to whom the case was taken on revision. From the judgment delivered by the High Court, this appeal has, by special leave, been brought by one o...
Balaji Vasudeo Athawale Vs. Sadashiv Kashinath Lavate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom389; 165Ind.Cas.530
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant to avoid a sale of a house at Nasik which was effected by his guardians with the sanction of the District Court given under the Guardians and Wards Act on 8th March 1922. The plaintiff was left considerable property by the will of his granduncle Ganesh Jagannath. The will, which was made in 1911 when the plaintiff was seven years old, appointed his mother Radhabai and the testator's daughter Kondubai trustees to manage the estate during their lifetime. It provided that the trustees were to provide for the maintenance of the plaintiff and themselves and other relations of the testator. For the purpose of maintenance a provision of Rs. 500 a year was specified and authority was given for spending other sums on the plaintiff's thread ceremony and marriage and on pilgrimages by Kondubai and other purposes. The estate consisted for the most part of shares in the Tata Iron Company and other concerns and of a...
Maharana Shri Dolatsinghji Jaswantsinghji Vs. Khachar Mansur Rukhad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR690
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant in these eighteen consolidated appeals is the ruler of Limbdi State in Kathiawar. The respondents are the mulgametis and landholders in eighteen villages of the Khadol Barwala Taluka in Dhanduka in British India, each of the appeals relating to one of the villages. The appellant, as plaintiff in the suits, in substance asks for a declaration that he, and not the defendants, is entitled to be registered as talukdar under the Gujarat Talukdars' Act (Bom. VI of 1888), as amended by Act II of 1905.2. On April 23, 1928, the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad granted the appellant in each suit the declaration asked for. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by an order in each suit dated October 9, 1931, set aside the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suits to allow the appellant an opportunity of joining the Government as a party to the claim as regards an agreement dated August 12, 1922, and his absolute ownership of the villages in q...
Hodge Vs. Marsh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR680
Alness, J.1. Said that in the circumstances the Board were disabled from delivering judgment as the appeal abated at the moment of the death of the respondent....
Andre Paul Terence Ambard Vs. the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tob ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR681
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago ordering the appellant to pay a fine 25 or in default to be imprisoned for one month for contempt of Court, and further ordering him to pay the costs of the proceedings as between solicitor and client.2. The first question that arises is whether, as contended by the respondent, the Privy Council is incompetent to entertain an appeal from an order of a Court of Record inflicting a penalty for contempt of Court. The decisions on the point are conflicting. In Rainy v. The Justices of Sierra Leone (1852) 8 M. P. C. 47, a Board consisting of Lord Cranworth, Knight Bruce L. J., Dr. Lushington and Sir Edward Ryan undoubtedly decided that no such appeal lay. Lord Cranworth, in giving the judgment of the Board, after pointing out that in this country every Court of Record is the sole and exclusive judge of what amounts to a contempt of Court, proceeded (p. 54):-.we are of opinion, that it is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›