Skip to content


Moorji Maneck Vs. Passu Parbhat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number O.C.J. Suit No. 972 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR629
AppellantMoorji Maneck
RespondentPassu Parbhat
Excerpt:
.....to give short short of notice of motion.;under rules 321 and 323 of the bombay high court rules, 1909, the prothonotary has power to issue short notice of a motion. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge..............
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. Whatever my personal view may be regarding the delegation of powers to the Prothonotary under Rules 81 and 321 of the Bombay High Court Rules, I find that the practice in the Prothonotary's office is that applications to issue short notice under Rule 321 are made to and disposed of by him. From the enquiries I have made I have reason to suppose that this practice is based on a legal interpretation of these Rules; and I further have no doubt that the legal interpretation in favour of the practice is one which it is quite open to an authority to take, on the terms of the Rules themselves. I am entirely new to the practice and procedure of this side of the Court and I am indisposed to act on a personal view of the interpretation of the Rules, which would interfere with the established practice. Therefore I hold that the notice of motion in this matter is not bad.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //