Mumbai Court January 1889 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. Ganesh Khanderao and Ganesh Daulat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom506
Jardine, J.1. This is an appeal directed by the Government of Bombay under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedures from an appellate order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge of Thana, reversing the convictions and sentences passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge for offences punishable under Section 182, and Section 182 with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge did not enter into the merits; but, assuming the facts to be as found by the Assistant Sessions Judge, held, on the authority of In the matter of the petition of Golam Ahmed Kazi I.L.R. Cal. 314 and The Queen v. Periannan I.L.R. Mad. 241 that they did not constitute any offence.2. The Public Prosecutor has argued for the Crown that Section 182 has been wrongly construed, and that this section applies to the facts, and that they also constitute the offence of cheating by personation as defined in Section 416 of the Indian Penal Code. In Golam Ahmed Kazi's case I.L.R. Cal. At pp. 315 the learned J...
Queen-empress Vs. Gundya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom502
Jardine, J.1. Rav Saheb Narayan Vaman, a Magistrate of the second class, who tried the case, convicted the accused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code of grievous hurt. In the opinion of the Magistrates, Mr. Loch and Mr. Fraser, who heard the appeals, the offence disclosed by the evidence was that of grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, punishable under Section 326, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the second class, who appears to have ignored the fact that an axe was used in causing the hurt. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case and the appeals decided by Mr. Fraser to this Court, on the ground that the proceedings were void ab initio under Section 530, Clause (p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That clause declares void the proceedings of any Magistrate who, not being empowered by law in this behalf, tries an offender. It has not been suggested that the accused have been prejudiced, nor that the sentences passed are unduly lenient. We have, the...
In Re: Ganesh Narayan Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom590
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. In this case an order had been made by Birdwood and Jardine, JJ., in the exercise of the power of revision of this Court, for notices to be served on Balkrishna Govind Sindekar, Balvant Narayan Dabir, Mahadev Keshav Kumtekar, Ramchandra Gopal Javarkar and Narayan Shamrav Satbhai to show cause why the Magistrate's order, dated the 24th October, 1888, dismissing the complaint of one Ganesh Narayan Sathe should not be set aside. Notice was also ordered to be given to the Government Pleader and the complainant. At the hearing of the rule no one has appeared, except the accused, who have been represented by counsel. This order was made in consequence of a letter of the 6th November, 1888, from the District Magistrate of Poona, in reply to the request by Mr. Justice Birdwood and Mr. Justice Jardine, that he would state how he had disposed of the complaint made by Ganesh Narayan Sathe. In that letter the Magistrate state? that he had summarily dismissed the complaint u...
Parsotam Vithal Vs. Abdul Rehmanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom500
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The nazir is the proper officer of the Court to whom, under Section 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), the summons is delivered for service. It is, therefore, for him to return the summons to the Court as unserved, and this he does by countersigning the bailiff's endorsement. The one year would, therefore, run from 10th October 1887, and the application for a fresh summons is not too late....
Narayan Ganesh Vs. Hari Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom664
Jardine, J.1. On a careful consideration of the pleadings and the issues originally framed, we are of opinion that the claim stated in the plaint is for the profits' of certain lands, which, the plaint says, the defendant had taken 'without right,' and 'wrongfully.' The same view has been taken by both the Court below. The Subordinate Judge remarks' that 'plaintiff claimed the profits as damages, treating defendant as a trespasser.' The Assistant Judge considered the original plaint to be a 'claim for damages for wrongful occupation, and for injury done to the property.'2. Afterwards, the plaintiff applied for amendment, electing to treat the defendant as his tenant, and confining his claim to the profits of certain lands, which are specified in a rent-note, of which he had filed copy with his plaint. The Subordinate Judge, without making an amendment, framed two new issues in regard to the relation of landlord and tenant, on the footing of the rent-note. The Assistant Judge was of opi...
Janardanrav and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom442
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs' claim for interest on arrears of land revenue between 1859 and 1885 rests on the assumption that they were entitled to the land revenue itself which had been received by Government during the period as the lawful holder of the village. The adjudication of this suit would, therefore necessitate a decision on a question, which by Section 4 Sub-sections (f) and (k) of Act X of 1876, is a 'matter' not within Fl the competency of a Civil Court, unless the claim be 'under a judgment by a Court of law or an adjudication duly passed by a competent officer under Bombay Regulation XVII of 1827, chapter X, or under Act XI of 1852, which declares the particular property in dispute to be exempt.' It is contended for the plaintiffs that the Resolution of Government of 19th October 1882, was such an adjudication, and that the Civil Court can, therefore, take cognizance of the plaintiffs' claim as based upon that adjudication. It is not in dispute that the plain...
Devachand and anr. Vs. Hirachand Kamaraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom449
Bardwood, J.1. The decision of this appeal turns upon the construction to be put upon Clause 3 of Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1879, in reference to a promissory note not stamped at the time of its execution, in respect of which the Court, in which a suit has been brought upon such note, has levied the proper stamp duty under the Act together with a penalty of ten times the amount of the proper duty. The question is whether, after a Subordinate Judge has so admitted the note in evidence, he or his successor in office can, in a later stage of the same suit, question the propriety of such admission and treat the instrument as inadmissible.2. The present suit was brought on three promissory notes, all of which were unstamped when the plaint was filed. At the time when the issues were settled, the Subordinate Judge levied what he understood to be the proper duties on the notes, which he regarded as bonds within the meaning of the Act, together with ten times the amount of those duti...
Tukaram Anant Joshi, a Lunatic by His Next Friend Bhikaji Ramachandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom656
Jardine, J.1. The suit was for partition of lands, and was filed on the 29th August, 1883, by one Bhikaji Ramchandra, as next friend of Tnkaram Anant Joshi, a lunatic. The defendants in their written statement alleged that the next friend of a lunatic cannot bring a suit without having obtained a certificate of guardianship or administration.2. The fifth issue framed by the Subordinate Judge was as follows: 'The plaintiff has sued by his next friend. Whether such suit can lie, according to Chapter 31 of the Civil Procedure Code?' It is admitted that on the 12th March, 1885, Tukaram was adjudged to be of unsound mind, and Bhikaji was appointed manager of his estate, under Section 9 of Act XXXV of 1858. Section 14 declares that, with certain exceptions, which it is unnecessary to notice here, such a manager 'may exercise the same powers in the management of the estate, as might have been exercised by the proprietor, if not a lunatic.'3. The Subordinate Judge decided the suit on the 27th ...
Balanatha Vs. Bhiva Natha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom496
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies in this case. That would have been so if the order now appealed against had been made on appeal from the order allowing review, as was the case in Shan Singh v. Chundan Singh I.L.R. Cal. 296. Here, however, the appeal to the first Appellate Court, as shown by the stamp and its express terms, is against the decretal order itself as amended by the Subordinate Judge after following the review, and the objection to the order granting the review was taken on that appeal as contemplated by Section 629. The present second appeal is, therefore, in form against a decree restoring the original decree, although the real objection to it may be, not that the amendment is wrong, but that no amendment should have been allowed under the circumstances.2. But it is further said that in any case the decree now appealed against is final under Section 629, as it is, in terms, an order refusing the plaintiff's applicat...
Sakharam and anr. Vs. Gangaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom654
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The suits, having, been transferred from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pandharpur to the District Court of Sholapur, were pending in the latter Court when the defendants made their application to have the suits retransferred to Pandharpur. Section 25 only enables a District Court to transfer a suit pending in a Court of first instance subordinate to itself, and not to transfer a suit which is pending in its own Court. The order of retransfer must, therefore, be discharged as having been made without jurisdiction. Rule made absolute with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »