Mumbai Court November 1902 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.
Bomanji Jamsetji Mistri and Bai Nawajbai Minor by Her Father and Next ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom65
Russel, J.1. I must make the summons absolute. Looking at the form of the plaint, I think, the Advocate General's argument is well founded, that the first plaintiff is trying to make money out of his daughter's engagement. It appears to me that the first plaintiff is added merely to get over the difficulty as to security, if possible. The present case is clearly: distinguishable, from Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji (1898) 23 Bom. 100 and falls within the dictum of Bowen, L.J., in Cowell v. Taylor (1885) 31 ch. D. 38.2. The section vests a discretion in me, and, in my opinion, I must exercise it in favour of the defendant. I therefore order that the summons be made absolute. Plaintiff to deposit Rs. 400 as security within two months. In default, suit to be dismissed with costs. If the deposit be made, costs to be costs in the cause....
In Re: Goverdhandas Meghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom84
1. This is an application to set aside an order purporting to be passed by a Full Court of the Small Causes Court, consisting of the Chief Judge and the Second Judge, revoking a sanction granted by the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes to prosecute one Pragji Ramdas for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is contended that the Registrar in granting the sanction acted in a judicial capacity, being authorized under Section 35 of the Small Cause Court Act to make any order in respect of the committal and discharge of judgment-debtors which a Judge of the Court might make under the Act, and that the order granting sanction was passed while acting as a Judge, that under the provisions of Section 195, Sub-section (6), of the Criminal Procedure Code a sanction given under that section can only be revoked by any authority to which the authority giving it is subordinate, that under Sub-section (7) of the same section a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to...
Emperor Vs. Sherufalli Allibhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom87
Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioner, Sherufalli Allibhoy, was tried before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on three charges: firstly, under Section 485 of the Indian Penal Code, having in his possession on the 9th October, 1902, certain stencil plates for the purpose of counterfeiting Messrs. Hubbock & Co. Limited's trade-mark on two kegs of paint; secondly, under Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, haying on or about the 7th October, 1902, at Bombay, sold two kegs to which a counterfeit trade-mark was affixed without taking reasonable precautions, &o.; thirdly, under Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, having in his possession for sale on or about the 9th October, 1902, certain kegs of paint purporting to be Hubbook's paint, having a counterfeit trade-mark. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner on each of the charges and sentenced him to eighteen months, rigorous imprisonment on the first and to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each of the other two charges. He also di...
Malkarjun Shidapa Vs. the Southern Maratha Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom82
Crowe, J.1. It seems quite clear to UB that the mere fact, that the plaintiff got the Hotgi station master to Bead a service telegram to Bagalkot to re-book the goods from Bagalkot to Hotgi, cannot possibly constitute a valid contract which would bind the Company, and the decision of the lower Appellate Court is perfectly correct.2. We must, therefore, confirm the decree and reject the appeal with costs....
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Janardan Ganpatrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom80
Chandavarkar, J.1. The order passed by Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Telang, giving leave fib the appellant to appeal to the Privy Council, says that costs should follow the appeal. The Privy Council having dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, we must, following the authority which the learned Government Pleader cited, viz., Milson v. Garter (1893) Ap. Ca. 638, correct the order and make the rule absolute with costs.2. The costs claimed by Government are allowed after deducting one anna for the stamp on the application for copies, which item is not admissible....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›