Mumbai Court June 1885 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.
Queen-empress Vs. W.D. Edwards and F.C. Verner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom333
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is an application by two persons, alleging themselves to be European British subjects, residing at Chadarghat, within the dominions of the Nizam, and asking that the criminal proceedings, which have been commenced against them for libel in the Cantonment Magistrate's Court at Secunderabad, should be removed to this Court under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882) as emended by Act III of 1884. To decide this question, it becomes necessary to ascertain with precision the jurisdiction of the Courts established by the Governor-General in Council in the Niazm's dominions, as well as the jurisdiction exercised by this High Court over those Courts.2. First, I will refer to the Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, XI of 1872, The object of that Act, as shown by the preamble, was to remove doubts which ,had arisen as to how far the exercise of power and jurisdiction by the Governor-General beyond the limits of British India, and the appli...
Baiva Khan Daud Khan Vs. Bhiku Sazba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom475
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. Article 134 of the Limitation Act XV of 1877 would, prima facie, be applicable to the case; but the attentions of the Subordinate Judge with appellate powers would appear not to have been drawn to the latter part of Section 2 of Act XV of 1877, which provides that when the 'period of limitation prescribed by the Act is shorter than the period prescribed by the Limitation Act IX of 1871, the suit may be brought within two years after the 1st October 1877, unless where the period prescribed for such suit by the same Act shall have expired before the completion of the said two years.'2. By article 134 of Act IX of 1871 the period in the case of a bond fide purchaser for value from a mortgagee is twelve years from the date of the purchase, and, therefore, if the respondent is to be regarded as such, the period of limitation would not be affected by article 134 of Act XV of 1877. But, assuming that the respondent cannot be treated as a bond fide purchaser for value, ...
The Government of Bombay Vs. Dodyama BIn Basapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom478
W. Wedderburn, J.1. In this case the Government of Bombay appeals against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. MaeCallum, First Class Magistrate of Kaladgi, in the case of Dodyama bin Basapa charged, under Section 19 of Act XI of 1878, with having in his possession a sword, in contravention of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The possession of the sword by the accused is not denied. But it appears that, in the opinion of Mr. MacCallum, such possession is not an offence within the Badami Taluka, where the accused resides, and where the alleged offence, was committed.2. The prohibition to possess arms is applicable under Section 15 to-(1). Any place to which Section 32, Clause 2, of Act XXXI of 1860 applied at the time Act XI of 1878 came into force; and,-(2). Any place to which the Local Government with the provious sanction of the Governor-General in Council, may, by notification in the local official gazette, specially extend the section.3. It is not alleged that a notification...
Tribhovan Gangaram Vs. Amina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom516
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge is right, in our opinion in treating the khata in question, which consists of only one it em as a mere acknowledgment, and as not amounting to an account stated. See the case of Nahanibai v. Nathu Bhau I.L.R. 7 Bom. 414....
Wala Hiraji Vs. Hira Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom518
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The sale of arms by the Nazir of the Court, in execution of a decree, is a sale by a public servant in discharge of his duty, and, therefore, excluded by Section 1, Clause (6), from the operation of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878; but we think it would be a proper thing for the Court ordering the sale to give the notice of the sale and of the purchaser's name and address contemplated by Section 5 of the Act....
Mahomed Muse and ors. Vs. Jijibhai Bhagvan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom520
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The objection to the condition in the mortgage, that if the mortgage redeemed the land, the mortgage right only should be extinguished, and the lands should remain in the hands of the mortgagee, he paying a rent of two rupees per tigha has not been dealt with by the Assistant Judge, although it was raised by the fourth ground of the plaintiff's appeal. Such a condition, although it does not exclude the right of redemption, fetters it with the onerous obligation of accepting the mortgagee as a perpetual tenant, and ought not, therefore, in our opinion, to be enforced in a Court of Equity.2. We must, therefore, reverse the decree, and order that the plaintiffs be entitled to redeem within six months from the date of this decree on payment of the sum of Rs. 1,999, or to stand forever foreclosed. Parties to pay their own costs throughout....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›