Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Bai Bhicaiji And Ors. vs Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla on 30 July, 1915

Alimahomed Salemahomed vs Municipal Commissioner Of Bombay on 15 August, 1924

6. Coming to the judgments of the Appeal Court, although, particularly in the Acting Chief Justice's judgment there are certain remarks which might be construed as referring to the residents of the locality, the judgments as a whole are devoted to the consideration of the question whether the user of the stables would result in a nuisance to the residents of the bungalow of whom the complainant was one. The words in which the learned Chief Justice finds on the question of nuisance are these (p. 1326):-" I hold that it is a nuisance with reference to the residents of this house in relation to the particular circumstances of the case. I do not say generally that any stables properly licensed, and kept according to the terms of the license, would necessarily be a nuisance. My finding has relation to the particular facts of the case including the situation of the stables and the extent to which the stabling accommodation is allowed on this land." This conclusion to which the leimed Judges of the Appeal Court came is further made quite' clear from their appreciation of the evidence on the complainant's behalf to the effect that the danger of malaria was increased in the locality. There was a divergence of medical evidence on the point, but so far as I can Bee the Judges of the Appeal Court were inclined to hold that the evidence did not prove the contention of the complainant and of the other residents of the locality that malaria was increased in the locality by reason of the user of these stables. If the ground of malaria was eliminated no other ground remained for holding that it was a public nuisance. I have gone through the whole evidence in that case. One Niblett, who resided in the house of Ismailji, and Nazir who occupied another house whom two houses are the nearest to the stables next to the bungalow in question, say that they suffered discomfort on account of stnell and noise. Their evidence, however, was very perfunctory, and the Judges of the Appeal Court do not specifically refer to it at all and have not brought their mind to bear upon those statements. It is a very doubtful question whether, assuming two or three houses were affected, it would be a case of public nuisance. I. find in Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. XXI, at page 611, where public and private nuisances are defined, in the note (k), that where a noise caused by a tinman plying his trade affected three houses only, it was held that there was a private nuisance and not an indictable one.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Municipal Corporation Of Bombay vs L.R. Mallandaine on 12 October, 1923

The nuisance here is more formidable for we have a stable of 400 horses as against one of 75, and the neighbourhood here is of a better class and approximates more closely to those ' select residential quarters' outside what may be called the native limits, which, in the opinion of the learned Judge in Bai Bhioaji's case, stand on a somewhat different footing. No doubt then that in a civil Court the applicant would get relief. I have already indicated that the supposed utility of these stables is not a matter which we can consider, a view which is also emphatically expressed by Beaman J. in the judgment cited. Here we are bound by the terms of the special legislation but within the four corners of the Act considerations appropriate to the general law on the question of nuisance are no doubt relevant, and as the Act gives a remedy the applicant is entitled to seek that remedy upon principles so applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Amarchand Harakchand Kaswa vs Ramanlal Shantilal Porwal And Ors. on 12 January, 1981

(Quoted by Andhyarujina in his Law of Rent Control at page 657) As has also been pointed out by Justice Beaman in Bai Bhicaiji v. Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla, XVII Bom.L.R. 1040, a legal nuisance is rather an evasive, shifting and intangible thing hard to be pinned down by a verbal definition. It must be always be conditioned by time, place and circumstances. It has been further pointed out by Justice Beaman that in estimating a nuisance complained of, the Court must have regard to the station in life of the plaintiff, and to the locality and the nature of the nuisance complained of. In the absence of statutory provisions, no general considerations of mere policy, or abstract public rights, can be allowed to prevail against what the law recognises and always has recognised as the legal rights of the individual. Again, there are many degrees of nuisances, those which (1) endanger life; (2) endanger health; and (3) diminish the comforts of the plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gajanan Damodar Deokar vs Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh And Ors. on 7 April, 1981

14. Incidentally it may also be mentioned that the grievance of the respondent against the petitioner on the question of the tethering of the cattle and the storing of the fodder was on the ground that it would cause damage to the property rather than nuisance to the respondents or the adjoining occupiers. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the nature of the nuisance and the persons to whom the nuisance is caused and the quantum of the actionable nuisance have not been proved by the respondent at all. The learned District Judge has not looked at the facts in proper legal focus. As has been pointed out by Justice Beaman in Bai Bhicaiji v. Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla, XVII Bom.L.R. 1040, a legal nuisance is rather an evasive shifting and intangible thing hard to be pinned down by a verbal definition, it must always be conditioned by time, place and circumstances. It has been further pointed out by Justice Beaman that in estimating a nuisance complained of, the Court must have regard to the station in life of the plaintiff, and to the locality and the nature of the nuisance complained of. These factors have not been borne in mind at all by the learned District Judge while they had been constantly placed before himself by the learned trial Judge. In my opinion, there is no basis for returning a finding of legal nuisance as mentioned in section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ismail Musabhai Memon vs Abdul Aziz Anvar Inamdar on 30 September, 2015

14) The law discussed in the cases cited supra shows that the defence that the defendant is doing his business in proper manner, in accordance with the conditions of licence, cannot prevent the Court from granting relief of injunction if the plaintiff is able to prove that the act of the defendant amounts to actionable wrong, nuisance. Circumstance that the defendant is not complying with the conditions laid down in the licence can be used as additional circumstance against the defendant. When there is non-compliance of the conditions of licence and there is also actionable nuisance it is up to the Court to ascertain whether the nuisance
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T V Nalawade - Full Document

Sukhlal Kalu Thorat (L.Rs.)Shantabai & ... vs Ramkrishna Hari Wani on 4 July, 2017

657) As has also been pointed out by Justice Beaman in Bai Bhicaiji v. Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla, XVII Bom.L.R. 1040, a legal nuisance is rather an evasive, shifting and intangible thing hard to be pinned down by a verbal definition. It must be always be conditioned by time, place and circumstances. It has been further pointed out by Justice Beaman that in estimating a nuisance complained of, the Court must have regard to the station in life of the plaintiff, and to the locality and the nature of the nuisance complained of. In the absence of statutory provisions, no general considerations of mere policy, or abstract public rights, can be allowed to prevail against what the law recognises and always has recognised as the legal rights of the individual. Again, there are many degrees of nuisances, those which (1) endanger life; (2) endanger health; and (3) diminish the comforts of the plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1