Mumbai Court November 1884 Judgments
Queen Empress Vs. A. Morton and Mooeteza Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom288
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question before us is whether the Judge now presiding at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court can proceed with the trial of the two prisoners who have been committed to this Court by the Magistrate at Secunderabad. One of the prisoners is admittedly a European British subject and a public servant, and it is not denied that the provisions 'of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (X of 1882) would apply to his case., By that section it is enacted that when a public servant is accused as such public servant of any offence, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence without the previous sanction of the Government. Now, it appears that the magisterial inquiry before Colonel Dobbs was held without such sanction having been previously obtained. That inquiry terminated in the committal of the prisoners for trial on the 27th September. The sanction of the Government, which has been put in evidence, is dated the 12th November, nearly two months subsequent...
Tag this Judgment!Davlatsing Valad Dayaram Vs. Pandu Valad Chandrabhu and Two ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom176
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The agreement, so far as it operates in satisfaction of the judgment-debt obtained in Suit No. 847 of 1881, is void as regards Chandrabhau under Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure, interest, which was not allowed by the decree having been added to the amount of the said debt. This would not invalidate the rest of the agreement if the part which is void could be properly separated from it. The parties, however, have treated the two debts as a lump sum, and under these circumstances we think the contract must be regarded as an integral one. The agreement being void, the action against the present defendants, who are only sureties, also fails.'...
Tag this Judgment!Javermal Hirachand Vs. Umaji Hayabati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom179
Kemball, J.1. The transferee of a decree is not entitled to have execution as of right like the original decree-holder; but Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882) provides that, if the transfer be by assignment in writing, the transferee may apply for execution, and it provides what course under such circumstances may be taken....
Tag this Judgment!Malhari Vs. Narso Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom174
Kemball, J.1. Although a Subordinate Judge invested under Act X of 1869, Section 28, with a Small Cause powers acquires the jurisdiction of two Courts, he does not become the Judge of two Courts, but remains the Judge of a Subordinate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Timapa Shanbhog Vs. Maneshvar Kashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom181
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think that the warrant of committal to jail having been made out, the discharge o the defendant whilst in confinement in the Court-house for non-payment of the instalment of subsistence allowance must be regarded as a discharge from jail within the meaning of Section 341 of the Code of Civil Procedure....
Tag this Judgment!Kesu Shivram Vs. Vithu Kanaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom320
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The first question raised by this reference is, whether the words 'not being merely a surety for the principal debtor' in Section 72 of the Dekkhan Relief Act, as amended by Act XXIII of 1881, are to be construed as applying exclusively to the case in which the principal debtor is a non-agriculturist. Taken in their plain and obvious meaning they would include all cases of sureties according to the maximum 'Indefinitum equipollet universali.' The expression first occurs in Section 3, Clause y, and Section 12 of the original Dekkhan Relief Act, XVII of 1879, but was omitted from those sections as amended by Act XXIII of 1881, and by the same Act it was introduced into Sections 56 and 72. In neither of the Sections 3 and 12 of the Act of 1879 is there anything in the context to restrict the generality of the expression. Nor does the circumstance of its subsequent omission from those sections necessarily lead to the inference that; the expression had been used in a...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Shaik Raju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom173
West, J.1. In this case there is not evidence or a finding that Shaik Raju wilfully turned the cow into the enclosure, and so caused it to destroy the crop. Some wilful conduct of such a kind is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. For the minor offence of negligence in guarding an animal which strays into the ground of a person not its owner, provision is made by the Cattle Trespass Act I of 1871, Section 10. The Court reverses the conviction and sentence, leaving the accused to be proceeded with, if thought fit, under the Act last named....
Tag this Judgment!Hari Mahadaji Savarkar and anr. Vs. Balambhat Raghunath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom233
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the language of the bonds (exhibits 42 and 43) does not create a further charge on the mortgaged premises, although it would prevent the original mortgagor, who passed the bonds, from redeeming without paying their amounts. This is in accordance with the construction placed by the Court in Mama v. Martand See infra, p. 236 on similar language.2. As to the number of years of interest which the mortgagee can claim, we think that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in considering that Section 12, Regulation V of 1327, was applicable. That section was repealed by section I of Act XXVIII of 1855; and although the latter section was repealed by Act XIV of 1870, still Section 12 of Regulation V was not restored, there being no express provision in Act XIV of 1870, which revived it, as required by Section 3 of Act I of 1868. The question, therefore, has to be determined by the Limitation Act XV of 1877, which was in force when the su...
Tag this Judgment!Babaji and ors. Vs. Dhuri and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom305
West, J.1. The case of Deen Dayal v. Jagdip Narayan, as recently explained in Hurdey Narain Sahu v. Pandit Babu Rudra Prakash Misser L.R. 11 Ind Ap. 26 rules that no matter for what purpose an unsecured debt was contracted by a father, if he alone is sued not expressly in his representative capacity and without his sons being joined as defendants, the decree does not bind their inter, ests in the family estate. Nor when the judgment-creditor proceeds to sale in execution against the family property does the sale of the father's 'right, title, and interest' pass any more than his interest to be ascertained generally by a partition with his sons. In the present case there are four sons forming, with their father Dhuri, a united family. This of them sue on acquired of themselves and of their infant brother, which, on. the decisions, they may properly do. The father having been sued on a simple debt, his interest in a piece of land was sold in execution of the decree against him., and was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›