Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR525
Viscount Simon L.C., J.1. This appeal is brought, by leave of the Madras High Court, from an order of that Court dated November 5, 1937, dismissing the appellants' application that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Board of Revenue at Madras to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order made by the Collective Board, on October 9, 1936, under Section 172 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.2. The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should 'be certified' of the proceedings to be investigated and the object is to secure, by the exercise of the authority of a superior Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. This writ does not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom115; (1937)39BOMLR1309
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 5,998 as principal and Rs. 4,001 as interest from the suit property. His case was that the property in suit had been gifted to him by one Mahamad Asmal by a gift-deed on April 3, 1919. Prior to the gift-deed, there had been two mortgages in connection with the property : on March 14, 1918, part of the property had been mortgaged by Mahamad Asmal to the plaintiff himself for Rs. 999, and on November 29, 1918, the whole of the suit property was mortgaged by Mahamad Asmal to one Darasha for Rs. 4,999. The mortgage to Darasha provided that the mortgagee should pay off the prior mortgage of Rs. 999 to the plaintiff. One day prior to the passing of the gift-deed, on April 2, 1919, the mortgage to Darasha was paid off. On the mortgage-deed (exhibit 32) there is an endorsement that Isap Bapuji (the present plaintiff) had on that day (April 2, 1919) paid Rs. 4,999 on behalf of the mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1946Bom516; (1946)48BOMLR341
Bhagwati, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit, being members of the Arya Samaj, Bombay, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the said society, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, against the first defendant who is the president of the said society, as representing the society of the Arya Samaj, Bombay, and against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the members of the managing committee of the society on behalf of themselves and all the other members of the managing committee of the society, for a declaration that the resolutions dated October 8, 1944, passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the society are ultra vires and in fraud of the minority, for a declaration that the resolution dated January 21, 1945, passed at the general meeting of the said society is also null and void and for further and other reliefs. The resolutions dated October 8, 1944, enacted certain changes in the constitution of the said society and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)ILR41Bom588
Batchelor, J.1. In this appeal it is candidly admitted by the learned pleader, Mr. Thakor, that he has no prospect of success unless he can be allowed to show that Article 127 of the Indian Limitation Act is not applicable to Mahomedan parties. Unfortunately for the learned pleader's contention there is a long series of decisions by Division Benches of this Court against that argument, and sitting as a single Judge, I am bound, it seems to me, to give effect to those decisions. If Mr. Thakor can carry the matter to a Division Bench on appeal and can induce a Division Bench to refer the point for reconsideration by a Full Bench, that is another matter. But all that I can do is to dismiss the appeal with costs, following the course of Division Bench decisions to which I have referred.2. Cross-objections are dismissed with costs.3. There was an appeal against the above decision under the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent appeal was heard by Beaman and Heaton JJ. on the 8th September 1916...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR16
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a rule granted at the instance of the Government of Bombay calling upon Balkrishna Govind Kulkarni, Editor and Publisher of the Shubhodaya newspaper at Dharwar, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of the publication of an article commenting on the proceedings in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Dharwar against two volunteers of the Temperance Committee who were alleged to have extorted some money from a Bhangi.2. The article commences:-Proceedings have been instituted against two volunteers of the Temperance Committee for the alleged extortion of thirteen annas and the hearing commenced ten days back...The Police have appointed to conduct the case one of their inspectors who merely does what he is asked to do by the police and echoes them and earns his pay without any trouble. Every one in the town seems to be under the impression that the complainants voluntarily paid the fine and that the case owe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR612
Russell, J.1. The point for decision on this appeal from the High Court at Allahabad is short, but not free from difficulty. The relevant facts which gave rise to it must first be stated.2. One Seth Kashi Nath obtained a decree (in a Suit No. 42 of 1930) against the present respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6, and one Lala Sagarmal. Lala Sagarmal is dead, and his sons, the present respondents Nos. 4 and 5, were substituted for him on the record in the present suit. Respondent No. 6 has been declared insolvent and the Official Receiver, Algiers, has also been brought on the record in the present suit. For convenience the original defendants to suit No. 42 of 1930 or those representing their interests from time to time will all be included in the words the debtors.3. Seth Kashi Nath having obtained his decree applied to attach certain immovable property as being the property of the debtors and liable to be sold in execution of the decree. He was met by an objection filed on behalf of the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom69; (1928)30BOMLR177; 108Ind.Cas.495
Rangnekar, J.1. On February 17, 1927, Mr. Justice Kemp appointed Mr. Moos, receiver of the estate of the minor plaintiffs in this suit. As one of the prayers of the notice of motion was for interim maintenance of the minors the learned Judge appointed the Administrator General as guardian of the property of the minors and directed the receiver to pay to him a monthly sum of Rs. 600 for their maintenance. The order, however, contained no directions as to whom the maintenance allowance was to be paid. As Mr. Justice Kemp sat in the Sessions and thereafter went on leave, the matter could not be mentioned to him, and was ultimately brought before me. It was agreed between all the parties that the Administrator General should be directed to pay the maintenance allowance to defendant No. 2, and, as I was about to make the order, the Administrator General, who appeared in person, requested me to substitute the expression 'Official Trustee' in place of the original expression 'Administrator Ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom216; (1940)42BOMLR428
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against an order mad by Mr. Justice Norman sitting singly in an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Belgaum. The appellant before us and another had filed a suit in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Gokak for accounts and redemption of a mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. It related to two lands, survey No. 32 and survey No. 29: It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ravji and his brother Bapuji, since deceased, had mortgaged the whole of survey No. 32 and survey No. 29, pot No. 3, to one Datto Ramchandra Kalkundri. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were heirs of the mortgagee. They had transferred their mortgage rights in 1925 to defendant No. 4. In darkhast No. 54 of 1922 brought in execution of a decree obtained by one Vinayak Joshi against Ravji survey Nos. 29/3 and 32/3 were sold as belonging to Ravji, and were purchased by defendant No. 5. Defendants Nos. 6 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom245; (1933)35BOMLR388; 145Ind.Cas.164
Rangnekar, J.1. These two appeals and the revision application arise out of suits filed by one Balkrishna against the defendants to recover the amounts due to him on promissory notes passed in favour of 'the shop of Balkrishna Saraf'. Shortly after the institution of the suit Balkrishna died, and on an application by his two sons, Umakant and Narhari, the plaint was amended and they were brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff'. The principle suit in which evidence was recorded was suit No. 61 of 1925. The defendants put in a written statement in December, 1925, and the main defence was that the claim of the plaintiffs under the promissory note was satisfied by payment made to Narhari, the younger son, in respect of which the latter had passed a receipt. It may be stated that the total principal sum due to the 'shop of Balkrishna Waman Saraf' was about Rs. 5,380 exclusive of costs and interest. Besides that there was an outstanding decree for Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom117; (1928)30BOMLR350
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate confirming the order passed by the Marylebone Police Court on May 28, 1626, under Section 3 of the Act of 1920 to Facilitate Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 33) whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay to his wife a sum of two pounds a week for maintenance, and a sum of two shillings for costs. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has confirmed the order under Act XVIII of 1921. Rule was issued on the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision or otherwise with the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate.2. The principal Act relating to the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrates in reference to married women is the Act of 1895 (58 & 59 Vic. c. 39). Under Section 4 any married woman can apply to a Court of summary jurisdiction for an order of maintenance under the Act. The Act of 1895 is amended by an Act of 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 3...
Tag this Judgment!