Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Muhammad Mohidin Sait vs The Municipal Commissioners For The ... on 24 September, 1901

Faiyaz Husain And Ors. vs Municipal Board And Ors. on 15 November, 1938

21. The question for consideration in Muhammad Mohidin Sait v. Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras (1902) 25 Mad. 118 was whether by virtue of Section 392, City of Madras Municipal Act, 1894, the Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras had statutory power to commit an actionable nuisance and the question was answered in the affirmative. The question whether defendant 4 was authorized by statute to infringe the rights of the plaintiffs must be determined by reference to the provisions of the Electricity Act and the decisions just referred to, which turned on the interpretation of other statutes, are of little assistance in deciding the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raja Narayanlal Bansilal vs Maneck Phiroz Mistry And Another on 31 August, 1960

In Mohammed Dastaqir v. The State of Madras (4) this Court had to consider Art. 20(3). The appellant in that case had gone to the bungalow of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to offer him a bribe which was covered in a closed envelope with a request that he might drop the action registered against him. The police officer threw the envelope at the appellant who took it up. While the appellant was still in the bungalow he was asked by the police officer to produce the envelope and he took out from his pocket some currency notes and placed them on the table without the envelope. The notes were then seized by the police officer and a rubber stamp of his office was placed on them. On these facts it was urged that in relying upon the evidence of compelled production of notes the prosecution had , violated the provisions of Art. 20(3). In support of this contention the general observations made by this Court in the case of M. P., Sharma(5), were strongly pressed into service. This Court, however, rejected the appellant's arguments and held that the prosecution did not suffer from any infirmity. On the facts it was found that though the offence had in fact been already committed (1) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 274.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 68 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Ouseph vs Thomas on 5 August, 1986

In Muhammad Mohidin Sait v. The Municipal Commr. for the City of Madras, (1902) ILR 25 Mad 118 a cremation ground adjacent to a residential building was held not giving rise to an actionable nuisance. The land involved in this case is in Muvattupuzha where rubber cultivation is a normal use to which properties are put. "Whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined not merely by an abstract consideration of the thing itself, but in reference to its circumstances; what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey".
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008

In the case of Muhammad Mohidin Sait Vs. The Municipal Commissioners for the city of Madras: (1901) 25 Madras 118 the plaintiff sued for an injunction for restraining the Municipal Commissioners of Madras from using a plot of land acquired by them as a burial and burning ground on the allegation that his premises had become unhealthy and unfit for residential purpose, and it caused loss to the value of his property. It was noticed by the Court that though there was some evidence that the burning and burial ground was to some extent a source of nuisance to any one who occupied the plaintiff's premises and that market value of the premises had depreciated but the Court held that use of a place dedicated for communal purposes of cremation in a way which 16 was neither negligent or unreasonable and which was not calculated to aggravate the inconvenience necessarily incident to such an act, does not amount to an actionable nuisance. In the lead judgment, Sir Arnold White, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, quoted the following dictum with approval,-
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D Maheshwari - Full Document
1