Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom299
West, J.1. The facts found in this case are that Lalubhai Surchand agreed with Bai Amrit for the purchase from her of a house. He paid a portion of the purchase-money, rather less than one-fourth, and a sale-deed in his favour was executed by Amrit and her husband Ranchod Manor. This was dated 2nd July 1868; but, pending payment in full, possession was not delivered to Lalubhai, and on the same date a second conveyance for valuable consideration was made by Amrit and Ranchod to Tarachand, who received immediate possession. Amrit could then no longer give effect to her contract with Lalubhai, and she declined to receive the remainder of his purchase-money when he tendered it. Both deeds have been registered, and Lalubhai, charging Bai Amrit and Tarachand with fraud, seeks now to enforce the completion of the transaction with him by a delivery into his possession of the house that he purchased. The accusation of fraud is retorted by the defendants; but, on the facts found by the lower Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom219
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It appears that in the lower Court the plaintiffs pleader contended that this suit falls, in respect of the Court fees properly payable upon the plaint, within Article 17, cl. iii of Schedule II of the Court; Fees' Act (VII of 1870), as being a suit 'to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed,' and, therefore, only requiring a stamp of 10 rupees. Such a stamp is more than sufficient for a suit of the value of, Rs. 100. The First Class Subordinate Judge, however, decided that the plaint did not come within that article, but rather within Section 7, Clause 4, pl. (c), of the same Act, inasmuch as he was of opinion that the plaintiff not only sought a declaration of his right to take an account of the property and to inspect the Shavaks' (defendants') books, but also consequential relief, namely, production of the property dedicated to the idol, and that an account should be actually furnished to him from the books kept in the bhandar (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom311
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This suit arises out of the following undisputed facts. The firm of Sowerby & Co., the partners of which were William Sowerby and Framji Edulji took a contract from Government, on 12th November 1877, to construct a barrel-house at the Gunpowder Manufactory at Kirkee, and, on the 28th November 1877, agreed with the plaintiff to advance monies up to Rs. 15,000 for the purpose of carrying out the contract, the plaintiff to receive all sums to become due from the Government on the contractors' bills, and to pay the balance to the firm after satisfying the advances, with interest. On the same day the firm executed a power of attorney to the plaintiff, authorizing him to receive from the Government Engineer all such sums to become due to the firm under the contract, which power of attorney was deposited by plaintiff in the office of the Executive Engineer at Poona.2. In March or April 1878 Sowerby left for England, up to which time Rs. 34 900 had been advanced by plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1889)ILR13Bom12
Jardine, J.1. The matter for decision is one of general importance to suitors whose cases appear on the daily lists. One of the plaintiffs applies, under Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, for an order to set aside a dismissal under Section 102. The applicant has filed three affidavits. Assuming, as I do, that the facts therein stated are true, I have to determine whether he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.' He was in the court-house on the appointed day, and waited for some time, as the Judge happened to be sitting on the appellate side. Then, thinking that a part-heard case standing above his suit on the list would take up time, he left the court-house and went to against his employer, who had sent a messenger to call him to explain some part of some mercantile transaction. When the applicant returned in about half an hour, he found that his suit had been called on for hearing and dismissed. It is the practice of my C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1889)ILR13Bom314
Scott, J.1. The claim of Messrs. Ewart, Latham & Co. is set out in the affidavit of Mr. Greaves, partner in the firm, dated the 17th January last, and raises a question of considerable commercial importance. He says that his firm was, at the time of the liquidation of the company and for several years previously, agents of the company, and in possession, as agents, of goods, papers, and other property of the company, both moveable and immoveable; that as agents they have made advances and disbursements, and incurred expenses on behalf of the company in conducting the business, or for the purposes of the business. In a previous affidavit (August 27), he states that in excess of the money they have advanced, they (the agents) gave their personal guarantee, as such, in order to enable the concern to borrow money which was urgently required for the purpose of the company. All the advances made by the firm, and all the guarantees given by the firm, he says, were made with the sanction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1889)ILR13Bom681
Scott, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order of acquittal, on the 4th October last, by the late Chief Presidency Magistrate, who delivered an able and elaborate judgment. The facts are admitted. The accused were charged, under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act IV of 1887, with keeping a certain shed for the purpose of a 'common gaming-house within the meaning of the Act. The statutory definition of a common gaming-house is' a house, room, or place in which cards, dice, tables, or other instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using, or keeping such place.' The instruments here kept or used are two--one, a rain-gauge; the other, a gutter. They are constructed and used exclusively as a means of ascertaining the rainfall in the monsoon. On that rainfall, thus ascertained, great numbers of people are in the habit of making bets, which are registered by the accused, who, after deducting a commission on e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1889)ILR13Bom600
Scott, J.1. This was a complaint lodged in the District Magistrate's Court, at Poona, by one Ganesh Sathe against certain subordinate officials who had given evidence in the case of Empress v. Hammantrao and the complaint was grounded on the evidence given by them, the record of which was in the archives of the Magistrate's own Court. The complaint was dismissed by the District Magistrate, but the dismissal of the complaint was set aside by a Full Bench of the High Court. The High Court remanded the case for investigation, on the ground that the Magistrate had erred in allowing his decision to be influenced by consideration of the motives of the complainant. He ought, the Court said, to have confined himself to the consideration whether there was prime facie evidence of a criminal offence. The complaint on remand, came before another Magistrate and was again dismissed. The papers were once more sent for by the High Court, and have now come before this Division Court for disposal. After...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom246
Crowe, J.1. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff sues on a certificate of sale, dated the 12th November, 1883, under which he purchased the right, title and interest of Rajaram and Sitaram Haibat in certain Khoti and dhara lands situated in the villages of Shiravali, Vasapa, Ravatale and Vinhere. Exhibits 89 and 90 are the certified copies of the decrees passed in two suits--No. 518 of 1892 brought by plaintiff for the possession of certain lands situate in Vasape against defendants 4, 9, 10, 11 in the present suit and No. 519 of 1891 for the possession of the khoti share of the village Ravatale against defendant 5 in the present suit. The present suit is to recover separate possession by partition of a one-third share of the lands situate in the villages of Shiravali, Vasape, Ravatale and Vinhere mentioned in the sale certificate, together with mesne ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR22
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The accused in this case have been convicted as being persons found playing for money against the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Prevention Gambling Act 1887 in a railway carriage forming part of a through special train running between Poona and Bombay.2. The only question is whether it was in a public place that the accused were so playing. This depends on the meaning the word 'place' has in Section 12 of the Act. The word 'place' is, I think, qualified by the word 'public' and having regard to its context and its position in that context, it must, in my opinion, mean a place of the same general character as a road or thoroughfare, else it was pointle (sic) to use the words street or thoroughfare as they are there used To the Railway track as such the public have no right of access except as passengers in the Company's train. Therefore I need not seriously consider the suggestion that the accused were found playing in a public place, because ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR312
Russell, J.1. In this case a rule was issued by Mr. Justice Batty on the 24th December 1905, calling upon the defendants to show cause why the Mamlatdar's order should not be reversed, and the case sent back for re-trial on the merits on the ground that the facts calling for the exercise of his jurisdiction having been alleged, the Mamlatdar refused to inquire into them.2. Now the first thing to do is to consider the nature of the claim set out in the plaint. The plaintiff alleges that at a place called Kanheri, in the Than a District, there are two pieces of land belonging to him: on a piece of land towards the north he has got his house, to the south of that there is a piece of land belonging to the first defendant, and to the south of that again is a field of the plaintiff: and the plaintiff says that for a considerable period of time, for many years, up till the 29th of April last, that is, 1905, he was in the habit of going to and fro through the piece of land belonging to the fir...
Tag this Judgment!