Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR1006
George Lowndes, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a decision of the High Court of Bengal arising out of certain land acquisition proceedings taken lor the purposes of the Calcutta Improvement Act (Bengal V of 1911).2. The property in question belonged to the Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society, Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Society), and the questions sought to be raised by the appeals are as to the compensation to bo awarded. Neither party was satisfied with the High Court's decision. The Secretary of State applied for a certificate enabling an appeal to His Majesty in Council. The Society objected that no appeal lay, but asked in effect that if a certificate were granted to the Secretary of State, a certificate should also be granted to them. The High Court granted certificates to both parties. The appeals were duly admitted and are before the Board for determination. The Society contend, as they did in the High Court, that no appeal is competent, and this que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom90; (1931)33BOMLR1476
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court after taking accounts in pursuance of the directions given by their Lordships of the Privy Council.2. The appeal to the Privy Council arose in connection with certain suits brought by one Kevaldas and his family and subsequently one Tulsidas to enforce certain deposit receipts given by the company on October 31, 1911. Kevaldas alleged that he agreed with the company to have preference shares allotted to him to the extent of the face value of the debts owing by the company to him and his nominees represented by the amount of the deposit receipts, with accrued interest and some addition to current account which was incurred between October 81, 1911, and the actual date of his resignation, The company contended that there was no binding agreement in that behalf and that in any event there was due to the company a sum exceeding the amount of the receipts and that no money was du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom218; (1932)34BOMLR398
Tyabji, J.1. These are applications that I should declare the cases as being fit for appeal from judgments of mine passed in second appeal.2. The learned advocate, who appears in Civil Application No. 937 of 1931, relies upon the facts that in the case concerned an important question of law was involved; that I reversed the decree of the lower Court; that I characterised the questions of law involved as being complicated, and I considered them with some care and detail in my judgment. I notice with surprise and admire the restraint which has caused the omission of the ground that my decision is wrong. But I could not have allowed myself to be misled, or the party to be prejudiced, by this large-hearted omission : even if the omission had not been made up for by the almost irresistibly tactful suggestion that Courts are apt on such questions to take divergent views-leaving me to infer that another Court might take a view different from mine.3. In other cases, the ground of application i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR1523
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we have already held that we possess powers of superintendence. But the exercise of a power of superintendence is not the same thing as the hearing of an appeal. We have, I think, a discretion to revise or Bet aside any conviction under our powers of superintendence; but we must exercise our discretion on judicial grounds, and only interfere if considerations of justice require us to do so. It is suggested in this case that the order was illegal for this reason. The order was originally made by the District Magistrate ofSholapur, and it is an order which in terms has to be carried out within the District of Sholapur. But the order was served on the accused when he was in jail at Bijapur. The rights of the District Magistrate arise in this way. Section 57 of the Ordinance authorises the Local Government to invest the DistrictMagistrate with the powers of the Local Government under Sub-section of Section 4, and in pursuance of that authority the Lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom112; (1933)35BOMLR38
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is tin appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Blackwell dismissing the petition of a wife to have her husband adjudicated a lunatic. The appellant is the wife, and a preliminary point is taken that from such an order she has no right of appeal. That question involves in the first place the question whether the order is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a question which has very frequently been considered in this Court. I may for convenience refer to a short summary of the decisions in a judgment of mine in Ramanlal v. Chunilal (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. 252 where at page 253 I said :-.putting it shortly, the view which has always prevailed in this Court since the decision in Miya Mahomed v. Zorabi (1909) 11 Bom. L.R. 241 is that any order affecting the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability is a judgment within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.In that case, and in the cases on which the summary was based, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom266; (1934)36BOMLR510
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Barlee. The point involved is one of limitation and the necessary facts and dates are these. On July 3, 1916, the respondent obtained a money decree against Shankar, the father of the appellant, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. Then on November 3, 1917, Shankar died. On March 26, 1919, the decree-holder made an application (No. 49 of 1919) under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the decree for execution to the Dhulia Court. This application was made in ignorance of the death of the judgment-debtor. Notice was issued and the bailiff then reported that Shankar was dead. On July 21, 1919, an oral application was made by the judgment-creditor's pleader for time to make enquiries as to the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The application was granted and time was given for this purpose until August 15, 1919, but on that day the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom225; (1934)36BOMLR454
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.,1. In this case the plaintiff in Suit No. 3989 of 1924 has applied for an order for execution under Rule 387 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court (Original Side). That rule and the preceding Rule 386 are in these terms. Rule 386 provides:The Sheriff shall ordinarily execute the process of the High Court in the Island of Bombay, Cross alias Gibbet and Butcher's Islands and the coasts and harbours thereof, respectively, and shall not be compellable to execute process beyond the said limits.2. Then Rule 387 provides:Upon occasions when it shall be necessary to execute process beyond the said ordinary limits, the Sheriff shall grant his special warrant to such person or persona as a Judge shall direct; and in order to prevent any improper use or abuse of the process of the Court, the party issuing the same shall give such security or indemnity for its proper execution as the Judge shall direct.The plaintiff in this suit obtained a money decree for a sum of over on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR881
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Broomfield in a patent action. The material facts are that in the year 1927, the plaintiff, who is a chemist, started a business in partnership with one Girdharlal, who is the brother of the defendant, the name of the firm being Jarivalla Shah & Co. The defendant was a clerk in the employment of the firm. The firm had an experimental branch which carried on business in the name of Jasco & Co., that firm being in charge of one Dr. Patel. In August, 1928, the plaintiff left for Europe, leaving Dr. Patel in charge of the chemistry department. In February, 1929, the plaintiff returned to Bombay, and shortly thereafter Dr. Patel left the employment of the firm. In or about October, 1929, a firm called Harak-chand Shivji & Co. approached the plaintiff and asked him whether he could introduce a system of producing white almonds by some process of bleaching the shells. On November 9, 1929, the plaintiff commenced exper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom363; (1936)38BOMLR632; 165Ind.Cas.672
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr, Justice Black-well. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants as the sureties upon an administration bond, and the learned Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue of limitation.2. The facts are not in dispute. On October 21, 1920, one Chunilal Motilal died intestate, leaving two minor sons, who are the plaintiffs. On July 14, 1921, leave was given to Nathalal Motilal to apply for letters of administration. On November 24, 1921, the said Nathalal Motilal, and the defendants, as sureties, entered into a bond, which is exhibit A, for payment to Pheroz Behramji Malabari, Registrar of this Court in its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, and William J. Howard, acting Assistant Prothonotary, their executors, administrators and assigns of the penal sum of Rs. 1,76,682, which was double the value at which the estate was sworn. The conditions of the bond which was in the usual form, were, first, that Nathalal Motilal...
Tag this Judgment!