Mumbai Court August 1876 Judgments
Reg Vs. Gaji Kom Ranu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom311
Melvill, J.1. The Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar being debarred by Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from trying an offence committed in contempt of his own authority, the case of the Queen v. Gaji, wife of Ranu, is, under the provisions of Section 64 of the Code, ordered to be transferred for trial to the Sessions Court of Poona.2. If it were not for the peculiar wording of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we should have hesitated to accept the broad proposition laid down in The Queen v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 73), that the offence of giving false evidence is to be regarded as a contempt of Court. But [notwithstanding some rulings of the Allahabad Court to the contrary--Queen v. Kultaran Singh (I.L.R., 1 All. 129) and Queen v. Jugat Mull (I.L.R., 1 All. 162)] we agree with the Madras High Court (see Proceedings, 24th March 1873, 7 Mad. H.C. Rep., Appx. XVII) that the Legislature has, by most inapt words, extended the prohibition contained in Section 473 t...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Bhista BIn Madanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom308
Melvill, J.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Court is whether a sentence of fine only, or of imprisonment only, under Clause 6, Section 32 of Act XXXI of 1860, is a legal sentence.2. The clause in question enacts that every person who commits the offence thereby made punishable 'shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, and also to a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees.' The ordinary meaning of this phraseology would certainly be that the offender may be punished with imprisonment, or fine, or both.3. The difficulty of assigning to the words their natural interpretation arises from the circumstance that in other sections of the same Act (viz., 5, 15, 23, and 34) the Legislature has declared that persons who commit certain offences are 'liable to fine, or imprisonment, or to both fine and imprisonment,' and it may reasonably be argued that, if the Legislature had intended that offences under Section 32 shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom339
1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Narayan Vs. Trimbak Sadashiv and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom267
1. We concur in the decision of the lower Courts, and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Manji Hansraj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom295
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The Assistant Judge having found, as a fact, that the first defendant Manji did not receive the hundi from the plaintiff, or undertake the collection of its proceeds for him, this Court is bound by that finding, and must, so far as the decree of the Assistant Judge relates to the liability of the first defendant, affirm the same with costs.2. As the second defendant Muhammad Raisi has not, nor has either of the other defendants, made any objection in the Courts below on the ground that he (Muhammad Raisi) ought not to have been joined as a co-defendant with the first and third defendants, we must consider this case on its merits as against him. He admitted that in consideration of Rs. 500 received by him from the plaintiff, he (Muhammad Raisi) drew the hundi; hence it became necessary for him to discharge himself from the liability consequent upon that act. He attempted to do so by pleading payment of it to the third defendant, Ibrahim Hansraj. That defence sub...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Vasudev Vs. Khanderav Balkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom286
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to obtain a share in ancestral property in the possession of the defendant, whom the plaintiff alleges to be united with him in estate. The plaintiff admits that he has lived separate from the defendant for forty years previously to the institution of this suit in the year 1873, and that he (the plaintiff) has not, during that period, received any portion of the produce or profits of the ancestral property.2. Reg. V of 1827, Chap. I, Section 1, Clause 1, enacted that 'whenever lands, houses, hereditary offices, or other immoveable property have been held without interruption for a longer period than thirty years, whether by any person as proprietor, or by him and his heirs, or others deriving a right from him, such possession shall be received as proof of a sufficient right of property in the same.'3. That section has, both in the Sadr Adalat and in the High Court, been held applicable to suits, such as the present, t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Dada Naik Vs. Ramchandra Dada Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom561
Melvill, J.1. In this suit the parties are brothers, and the plaintiff sues for a partition of the family property.2. This is not the first litigation of the kind between these parties. At the beginning of the year 1861 the plaintiff filed a bill in the late Supreme Court at Bombay against his father Dada Naik and his brother, the present defendant, to obtain an immediate partition of the family estate. That case is reported at 1 Bom. H.C. Rep., Appx. lxxvi. The defendants demurred to the bill, and the demurrer was allowed by Sausse, C.J., and Arnould, J., on the grounds that the right of a son to a compulsory partition, if it exists at all against the father, does not extend to moveable property, and because the only immoveable property, of which a partition was claimed, appeared upon the face of the bill not to be within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court considered that, as between a father and his sons, in the distribution of paternal or other ancestral estate, the father tak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›