Mumbai Court July 1878 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Empress Vs. Malka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom643
Kemball, J.1. The Court concurs with the District Magistrate in thinking that Mr. Anding's view is wrong. It, therefore, annuls his order of discharge, and directs that the trial of Malka be proceeded with and disposed of according to law. Section 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly contemplates two distinct cases: one is that of a person coming forward to state what he knows; the other is that of a person accused by a police officer of an offence who comes forward to confess his guilt. With regard to the former, the section provides that the statement made by him shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for recording evidence--that is to say, under Section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on oath or affirmation; whereas in the case of an accused person confessing to an offence of which he is accused, the Code, by Section 345, enacts that neither oath nor affirmation shall be administered to him....
Lallu Ganesh Vs. Ranchhod Kahandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom641
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The Court is clearly of opinion that the effect of Section 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act X of 1877), coupled with the second schedule to that Act is to render the whole of chapter XX of the Code, including Section 360, inapplicable to Courts of Small Causes, notwithstanding the words 'any Court other than a District Court' and 'any Court situate in his district' which occur in that section. The consequence of this construction of the Code is, that Government resolution No. 2133, of the 3rd April 1878, at page 257 of Part I of the Bombay Government Gazette, of 1878, must be regarded as ultra vires, and invalid....
Madhavrav Keshav Tilak and ors. Vs. Gangabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom639
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Parashrama, the husband of the plaintiff Gangabai, is stated by her to have died about twenty-five years previously to the filing of her plaint in this suit, to which she has made her husband's brother Madhavrav, his nephew Govind, his great nephew Keshav alias Balaji, and his nephew Balkrishna parties as defendants. It is not denied that, at the death of her husband, he was undivided in estate from the defendants. It has been contended, on her behalf, that the annual proceeds of her husband's share (which has been found to be one-fourth) would not be sufficient for her maintenance, and that she is entitled to such additional allowance from the defendants (his co-parceners) as together with those annual proceeds will give her a sufficient maintenance. It seems, however, to this Court to be a corollary to the recent Full Bench decision in the case of [640] Savitribai v. Luximibai and Sadashiv (supra, p. 573) that the widow is not, at the utmost, entitled to a la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›