Mumbai Court August 1937 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.
Ayubsha Amirsha Jamadar Vs. Babalal Mahabut Danawade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom111; (1937)39BOMLR1324; 173Ind.Cas.801
Barlee, J.1. The dispute in this case is about the succession to the property of a lady called Bibisha, who was a resident in the Kolhapur State. She had landed property both in the Kolhapur State and British India, i.e., in the Chikodi taluka of the Belgaum district. The plaintiff, a collateral, claims the property as her nearest heir. Defendant No. 1 pleads that he has become her son by adoption.2. It has been established in a suit in the Kolhapur State that Bibisha went through a ceremony of adoption and purported to take defendant No. 1, Babalal, as her adopted son. This action of hers led to litigation, for apparently she resiled from her choice; and Babalal, while a minor, had to file a suit against her for a declaration that he was her adopted son. The question was then agitated whether an adoption by a Mahomedan was in accordance with the custom of the Kolhapur State, and should be recognized as legal; and the litigation ended with a decree that the adoption was valid and that ...
Savlaram Vithoba Vs. Salubai Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom171; (1938)40BOMLR106
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay. The workman in question was killed in an accident on May 27, 1935, so that the addition to Schedule II to the Workmen's Compensation Act which was notified in Government Notification No. L-3002 dated March 27, 1937, was long after the date of the accident. It is clear, therefore, that in considering whether the workman falls within the terms of the Act we must ignore that Notification, and take the Act and the Schedule as they were on May 27, 1935. The facts seem not to have been in dispute, and according to the finding of the Commissioner the workman was employed by the present appellant in the cotton godowns leased by Messrs. Toyo Menka Kaisha,Ltd., at Sewri. The practice is for purchasers of cotton bales to go down to the godown in order to take delivery of the bales. As I understand it, the purchaser is given a delivery order in respect of the number of unascertained ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›