Mumbai Court February 1887 Judgments
In Re: Premchand Dowlatram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom63
West, J.1. In this case the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad has fined the applicant Rs. 75 for not producing a document which he had been summoned to produce. The applicant came to the Court, but then stated on oath that he had not the document, and could not produce it. Thereupon the Judge disbelieving this statement fined him ostensibly under the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A careful perusal of that section, however, shows that the present case did not fall within it. The jurisdiction to punish under the enactment exists only in the case of a witness, who, not having attended on summons, has been arrested and brought before the Court. The case of a witness who, having a document, will not produce it, is provided for by Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code, and a limited summary jurisdiction is given to the Court in such a case by Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (X of 1882). The mere provision of this mode of procedure by the Leg...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Company, Limited Vs. Shepherd a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom237
Farran, J.1. This is an application to amend the proceedings by adding the steam-ship 'Zuari' as an additional defendant, The defendants upon the record are her owners. I have already intimated my opinion that I ought to allow the amendment if I have power to do so. Should judgment be recovered by the plaintiffs, and should they fail to obtain satisfaction from the defendants personally, they would be entitled to take proceedings in rem against the ship to enforce their maritime lien-The 'Orient' L.R. 3 P.C., 696. Concurrent proceedings in rem and in personam could also be adopted by the plaintiffs: see The Mali Ivo L.R., 2 Ad. & E. 356 where the earlier authorities are referred to; but, if such proceedings were taken in different Courts, the Court, in which the later proceedings were taken, would have jurisdiction in its discretion to stay them until the termination of the earlier proceedings-The Peshawar 8 P. D p. 32. If the proceedings were taken in the same Court I presume that dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›