Mumbai Court November 1906 Judgments
Pita Moti Vs. Chunilal Harakhchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR15
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This case, which comes before us by way of second appeal, arises out of an application under Section 310 A to set aside a sale of property sold in execution under Chapter XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts are briefly these: The original decree-holder Chunilal Harakchand in execution of his decree attached certain properties; and the four survey numbers, which are the subject-matter of the present application, were sold on the 19th of July 1904 for Rs. 840.3. This sale was carried out by the Collector to whom the decree had been transferred in accordance with Section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. Within thirty days from this sale the judgment-debtor Pita walad Moti, the present appellant before us, applied to the Court under Section 310 A to set it aside. That section required as a condition precedent that he should deposit in Court for payment to the purchaser a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money and for payment to the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tulsidas Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR951
Batty, J.1. In this case one Tulsidas Chhaganlal was accused of criminal breach, of trust as a clerk or servant. He was the gumasta of one Motilal and admittedly received on his account a sum of Rs. 107-9-9 on or about the 1st February which sum according to the expressed or implied terms of his contract with his employer, he was bound to account for or deliver into the possession of his employer after a reasonable interval-which, apparently according to the admitted practice, was within a day or two. The complainant Motilal after an absence from, home, had a dispute with the accused which ended in the dismissal of the latter : and it is now admitted that the accused retained in his possession the sum above mentioned from 2nd February up to the 23rd May following its receipt. Now this retention by itself would be primd facie evidence of conversion to his own use, in the absence of anything to negative it and to show that the possession was not on his own account. Because, consistently ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Gangaram Vs. Hansraj Morarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR122
Russell, J.1. I cannot but feel in this case that Mr. Jardine has raised an ingenious argument, but, in my opinion, the words of the Stamp Act are clear.2. Mr. Jardine asks me now, under Clause (2) of Section 38 of that Act to send this document in question in the original to the Collector.3. Clause (2) of Section 38 of the Stamp Act says: ' In every other case? the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector.' In order to find out what'in every other case' means, it is necessary to see what Section 38 enacts. That section says: 'When the person impounding an instrument under Section 33 has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by Section 35 or of duty as provided by Section 37, he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof an...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Maganlal Khushaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR156
Batty, J.1. In this case the accused person was charged with having infringed the provisions of Section 96, District Municipal Act; by building in contravention of the orders of the Municipality. The appropriate issue in that case was, whether the orders of the Municipality have been contravened. But the Magistrate has decided the case upon another ground, viz. that the order passed by the Municipality was an injudicious order. Ho does not find that it was ultra vires but has practically assumed and arrogated to himself the discretionary power vested by law in the Municipality, to determine whether the building should or should not be erected. This is manifestly an erroneous basis for the decision of the case and although this Court does not ordinarily interfere with orders of acquittal in revision, yet it cannot be expected that it would hesitate to do so, where the acquittal is based not upon an appreciation of doubtful evidence, but upon a manifest error in law appearing on the face...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Sadashiv Vs. Laxman Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR892
Batty, J.1. In this case an application for the execution of a decree was held to be time-barred, notwithstanding that within three years of its presentation, a prior application for execution had been put in. That prior application was held insufficient for the purpose of saving limitation, on the ground that it was not accompanied by a copy of the decree as required by Rule 80 of the High Court Circulars (Civil) framed-under Section 562, Civil Procedure Code. The objection taken was, that as the prior application did not comply with the requirements of the High Court Rules, it was not in accordance with law, within the meaning of Article 179, Limitation Act.2. This is a view, which has no doubt been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Sadashiv v. Bamchandra (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 394. That decision however has been criticised and disapproved in the case of Pachiappa Achari v. Poojali Seenan I L R(1905) Mad. 557. We have had the opportunity of consulting Mr. Justice...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Gangaram Vs. Hansraj Morarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR119
Russell, J.1. This case raises a very interesting question under the Stamp Act, for which, I may say, no distinct authority has been brought to my notice.2. The question arises in this way : The plaintiff sues as the assignee of a certain contract for the delivery of gunny bags which had been entered into by one Sharifbhoy Ebrabim who was the son of the second plaintiff with the present defendant.3. It appears that Sharifbhoy was largely indebted to the firm of which the first plaintiff and Sharifbhoy's father were partners? and towards satisfaction of the liability he assigned the benefits of this contract with the defendant which I have mentioned.4. In the course of the plaintiff's evidence Mr. Jardine, his counsel, tendered the following document (the one which is impounded).5. The principal portion and the principal subject matter of this document is this. It is a Gujarati contract called a sale of a number of gunny bags by the defendant to this man Sharifbhoy and there are a large...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kadar Ghulam Mahmad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR950
Batty, J.1. We are unable to accept the contention that there has been any misdirection in the summing up.2. The evidence seems to have been put very fairly before the jury and the suggestion that certain evidence put in to contradict, should have been pointed out to the jury, as put in merely for the purpose of contradicting, seems to us to be hypercritical, because the object for which that evidence was put in must have been obvious when it was put in. It also must be borne in mind that everything said by the Judge to the jury does not necessarily appear in the heads of charge, and discussion as to the reasons for which the previous statements were put in, must have been inevitable, when that evidence was put in. Objection was taken under Section 164 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the impropriety of recording a confession in which the questions relating to its voluntary character appeared at the end instead of at the beginning of the record. The word 'record' must necessarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjappa Subbaya and anr. Vs. Venkatesh Bab Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom159
1. The plaintiff has brought this suit against two defendants claiming against them the rent of four years.2. The first Court passed a decree against the second defendant only and on appeal the District Judge has passed a decree against both the defendants for the whole of the rent claimed.3. From this decree the defendant No. 1 now prefers this present appeal urging that though he may be liable in respect of the first year's rent, that is, for the year 1901, he is not liable for the subsequent years.4. The ground on which he bases this contention is that having been merely an assignee himself he is only liable for the rent accrued during the time that he was the owner of the Mulgeni interest.5. Now the facts are that the plaintiff purchased from the original lessor. The defendant No. 1 acquired, at a Court-sale, the interest of the original Mulgenidar, and on the 9th of May 1901, the first defendant sold and transferred to the second, defendant the Mulgeni interest acquired by him.6. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Cholappa Malharappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR947
Batty, J.1. This in an appeal by the Local Government from the order of accquittal, by which the accused, an employee of a license holder was on appeal acquitted of the offence with which he had been charged under Section 45 of the Bombay Abkari Act. The Local Government in appealing asked this Court to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused, on the facts held proved by the lower Courts, of an offence under Section 43(g) of the Abkari Act, which has been held applicable to facts such as those in the present case in Queen-Empress v. Framji Bamanji Kelavalla (1900) Bom. L.R. 664 and the cases there cited.2. There is no doubt that these rulings do apply in the present instance, and the facts alleged if proved amount to an offence under Section 43(g).3. Objection is taken however as to the qualification of the Mamlatdar who originally tried the case. It is not suggested that Section 191, Criminal Procedure Code, is applicable, as a complaint was formally made on which action was t...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Amjal Ali Khan Vs. Nawab Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR264
Macnaghten, J.1. This appeal involves the right of succession to a Taluka in Oudh which is.known as Akbarpur and is said to be of the value of about 15 lakhs. The Taluka was granted after the annexation to one Fazl Ali whose name was entered in lists I and II of the lists prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869. 2. The succession opened on the death of Fazl Ali on the 30th of August 1888.3. Fazl Ali had four wives, including Shah-enshah Begum, the 2nd respondent, whose marriage is disputed by the appellant. If married she was Fazl Ali's third wife. Fazl Ali had also three concubines, daughters of a woman named Bandi. By his first wife Fazl Ali had one son called Akbar Ali, who was born in 1835. Akbar Ali is described in the judgment under appeal as ' a headstrong young man of dissolute habits.' In 1857, under circumstances which are not explained, he murdered Bandi and fled from Akbarpur. Shortly afterwards he seems to have taken possession...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »