Mumbai Court October 1877 Judgments
In Re: Petition of Eatansi Kalianji and Six ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom148
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. On the 1st of May 1876 a warrant of arrest, under Section 201 of the old Civil Procedure Code (Act VIII of 1859), was issued against Ratansi Kalianji pursuant to a Judge's order of the 29th April 1876, upon an application for execution of a decree of the 27th April 1876. Ratansi Kalianji was arrested upon the 30th of October 1876, was brought before a Judge in Chamber on the 31st October 1876, and then finally committed by the Judge, 'until he (Ratansi Kalianji) satisfy the amount of the decree passed against (him) the said Ratansi Kalianji in the above suit.' Then followed in the same order the usual direction, under Section 278 of Act VIII of 1859, that the plaintiffs should pay to him subsistence allowance at the rate of 4 annas per diem, by monthly payments in advance. The receipts indorsed on the Judge's order by Mr. Lake, for the superintendent of the gaol, and by the sheriff, and the certificate of the latter, show that the detention of the prisoner Rata...
Tag this Judgment!Rangubai Vs. Bhagirthibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom377
West, J.1. We are of opinion that it is not Within the competence of a wife, according to the Hindu law prevailing in this part of India, to give a son in adoption against the will, express or implied, of her husband, the father of that son. The principal authorities are quoted in the judgment of Sir M. Westropp, C.J., In Narayan v. Nana.7 Bom. H.C. Rep. 153, and Bashetiappa v. Shivlingappa 10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 268. There is a certain degree of ambiguity in the original passage of Manu (ch. IX, 168), arising from the use of singular nominatives with a disjunctive particle along with a verb in the dual; but the two principal commentators, Medhatithi and Kulluka, have both construed the passage as requiring the concurrence of both parents to a giving in adoption. According to Vashista, quoted in the Dattaka Chandrika, a woman is not either to give or to take in adoption without the assent of her husband; and though Dewandha Bhat urges that non-prohibition may constitute assent, he applies t...
Tag this Judgment!imperatrix Vs. Padmanabh Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom384
Melvill, J.1. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the sanction to a prosecution should be given by 'the Court before or against Which the offence was committed, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.'2. The decision of the Sessions Court proceeded upon the ground that although, in certain executive matters, all Magistrates are subordinate to the Magistrate of the District, yet that such subordination is not of a judicial character, and that, as a Court, a Magistrate of the First Class is not subordinate to the Court of the Magistrate of the District, but to the Court to which appeals from the decisions of a Magistrate of the First Class ordinarily lie, i.e., to the Court of Session. 3. There is no doubt a good deal to be said in favour of the view adopted by the Sessions Judge. Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code divides the Criminal Courts in British India into four grades only, and one of these is the Court of the Magistrate of the Fir...
Tag this Judgment!Dulsook Rattanchand Vs. Chugon Narrun and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom356
Michael Westropp, C.J.,1. A decree of the 14th June 1873 for Rs. 123 was made payable by annual instalments of Rs. 20-8-0, with a proviso that, on default of payment of any one instalment, the whole amount of the decree should become payable forthwith. The first instalment fell due, but was not paid until subsequently to the 14th June 1874. The second instalment was paid into Court on the 2nd April 1875, and the third instalment on the 13th March 1876. The plaintiff on the 23rd June 1877, applied for execution for the whole of the residue of the amount decreed. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad has referred to this Court the question whether the right to such execution is barred by the law of limitation (Act IX of 1871), and has expressed his own opinion to be in the affirmative. In that opinion we concur. We think that the whole amount decreed, became due on the first default in payment of the instalments, viz, on the 14th June 1874, so that three years and nine days...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›