Skip to content

Mumbai Court August 1903 Judgments

Aug 04 1903

Narasimha Shankar Deshpande Vs. Balwant Lakshman

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Aug-04-1903

Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom381

Chandavarkar, J.1. The libel complained of in the plaint is that the defendant in his capacity of Chief Constable of Pandharpur sent in December, 1900, a false and malicious report to the District Superintendent of Police, Sholapur, recommending that the license held by the plaintiff for a gun under the Arms Act should be cancelled because he 'was an associate of thieves and dacoits.' The report sent in by the defendant does not contain these words; but the language used in it is plainly defamatory of the plaintiff, though it may not suggest that he is an associate of dacoits. Moreover, the defendant in his deposition admits that he did give information to the District Superintendent that the plaintiff was 'harbouring offenders' and that his report was based on his 'fear that he' (the plaintiff) 'associated with bad characters.'2. We cannot agree, therefore, in the District Judge's finding upon the evidence that the defendant did not report that the plaintiff was and accomplice of thie...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1903

Narasimha Shankar Deshpande Vs. Imam Valad Mahamad

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Aug-04-1903

Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom384

Chandavarkar, J.1. We think that the District Judge is right in the view he has taken as to the legality of the act of the defendant complained of as wrongful by the plaintiff. The plaintiff held a license for a gun under the Arms Act, which was to expire on the 31st of December, 1900. Some time before that date, i.e., on the 1st October, 1900, the plaintiff applied to the District Magistrate for a renewal of the license and for an additional license for fresh arms. The application was forwarded for enquiry by the Police and the result of it was that the Police recommended that the license already held by the petitioner should be cancelled and that his application for a fresh license should be refused. Acting upon that recommendation, the District Magistrate passed an order cancelling the plaintiff's license and declining to grant a license for fresh arms. This order was forwarded to the District Superintendent of Police with a direction that it should be communicated to the plaintiff ...

Tag this Judgment!

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial