Mumbai Court October 1906 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.
Emperor Vs. Dhondi Bapu Bhapkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR850
1. The offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code not being distinct offences (see illustration to Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code) the trying Magistrate's ordinary jurisdiction was not enhanced by the provisions of para 2 and proviso (b) of Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code, and the Magistrate was not competent to pass sentences exceeding in the aggregate two years imprisonment. See Queen Empress v. Malu (1899) 1 Bom. L.R. 142 : I.L.R. 23 Bom. 706. We alter the two separate sentences to one of two years rigorous imprisonment....
ismalji Ibrahimji Nagree Vs. N.C. Macleod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR969
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this case there is no doubt, several interesting questions have been raised.2. The first is whether the inclusion of Section 622 of the code of Civil Procedure in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act under the rules framed under Section 9 of that Act is not ultra vires? That is a question which has not been raised before. Another question is whether this Court, under Section 5 Clause (2) of Regulation XXVII has got the power to interfere in all cases tried in the Presidency Small Cause Courts, if this Court is of opinion that the decision of that Court is wrong.3. Those questions are of great importance, because the practice of this Court for many years has always been to interfere under Section 622.4. But, in our opinion, it is not necessary for us to be compelled to come to a formal decision upon the above points because we think that upon the merits the defendant is entitled to succeed. There is a good deal of point in Mr. Desai's argument that th...
Waman Hari Deshpande Vs. Hari Vithal Parulekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR932
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. The plaintiff herein (Hari Vithal) applied for execution of a decree against the surety (Waman Hari) of the judgment-debtor (Anpurnabai) and the surety of the surety (one Balaji).2. The following is a concise statement of the proceedings herein.3. 6th September 1892. Decree for plaintiff in Suit No. 331 of 1890 in Subordinate Court of Islampur against Anpurnabai wife of Balaji Suryaji.4. 26th October 1890. Plaintiff applied for execution, Dark-hast 517 of 1892 (Darkhast No. 1) and got possession of some property.5. On appeal against the decree, (250 of 1892), further execution was stayed on Waman giving security. The appellate Court remanded the Suit and Darkhast No. I was struck off the file of the lower Court.6. 10th October 1895. The appellate Court finally modified the decree.7. Plaintiff then presented an application for execution, 46 of 1896 (D. II) against Anpurnabai and surety Waman. On the 29th January 1896 the Court dismissed his claim against ...
Mancherji Hormusji Vs. Thakordas Hurkisondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR963
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this case a decree for sale of mortgaged property was passed some years ago and the execution therefor transferred to the Collector. He sold some of the mortgaged property and it realized more than Rs. 20,000. The rest he has ordered to be sold. In the meantime the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act has been applied to the District of Surat and the judgment-debtor asks for instalments under Sections 15 B and 20 of the Act.2. The other question is of limitation.3. As to the first question Section 20 does not apply to suits on mortgage-decrees, so the question really depends on the construction of Section 15 B of the Act. Before dealing with that section it is material to notice that the Act in the preamble says that 'it is expedient to relieve the agricultural classes of the Dekkhan from indebtedness.' Further it has been laid down by Ranade J. (Bhagawan v. Gannu I L R (1899) 23 Bom. 644 that the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in several of its pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›