Mumbai Court December 1906 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Cooverji Nasarwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR159
Batty, J.1. In this case admittedly the sentence of 100 Rs. fine is not sustainable, as the offence for which it was imposed, is not found to have been a second offence under the section. We should therefore in any case have to reduce it to Rs. 50. But we are not satisfied that the Magistrate has arrived at findings of fact that would justify the legal consequences which he attaches to his findings. He has apparently held the accused guilty of abetment in merely omitting to give information to his employees as to the rules. Abetment by omission would only be punishable, if the omission were an illegal omission. And no provision of law has been cited to us to show that there was any such legal obligation on the accused to communicate the state of the law to his employees as to make his omission an illegal omission. As to abetment by aiding, instigating, or conspiracy, the only evidence in tile case was as to an order said to have been received by telegram which is not now traceable. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Banubi Umarsaheb Vs. Narsingrao Ranojirao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR91
Beaman, J.1. One difficulty occasioned by the form of the suit which was not apparently before the mind of the learned trying Judge is this : Touching the house which the deceased is alleged to have given to the Masjid the suit is in ejectment and therefore the persons, if any, in actual possession need to be joined as parties. This was not done. Without expressing any opinion as to whether this was a true and valid wakf, it is clear that in respect of this relief the claim fails. Neglecting some other difficulties which might be similarly occasioned and confining ourselves to what is substantially in controversy, there remain two principal points.2. First of the wakf of Rs. 7,000. The plaintiffs' case is that this was not a valid wakf. But if it was, it was created by will or on the death-bed and in such case it could not extend to more than 1/3rd of the wakif's estate. We are very sensible of the care and ability with which the entire question has been examined by the learned Judge b...
Tag this Judgment!Jonnalagadda Venkamma Vs. Jonnalagadda Subrahmaniam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR89
Robertson, J.1. The question in this appeal is of the validity of the adoption of the second appellant by the first appellant. That a form of adoption was gone through may be assumed; but the first respondent has obtained the decree appealed against, which declares the nullity of that adoption, on the ground that the first appellant, who is the widow, had not the requisite consent of her deceased husband or of his kinsmen.2. The suit was brought in the District Court of Kistna; and, in that Court, was dismissed with costs. This decree was reversed with costs by the High Court of Madras, on 18th February 1903.3. The deceased Ramayya was a Brahman and was separate in estate from his kinsmen. Ho died without issue in 1881; and his widow, the first appellant, succeeded to his property. The respondents, who are cousins of the deceased, are the nearest reversionary heirs to the estate. They are divided brothers, the second respondent being the elder and they are the nearest kinsmen of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramkrishna Yeshwant Adarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR33
Batty, J.1. In this case the accused was charged with having sent a telegram to the Collector, stating that the Head Master of the local school had misappropriated certain moneys and prompt investigation was requested. The charge against the accused was under Section 182, Indian Penal Code and the accused has been convicted under that section, on the ground apparent' by, that the Court was convinced that the accused had no probable cause for making the assertion contained in the telegram -to the Collector : and that probably accused knew that a peon had confessed that he was guilty of the misappropriation imputed by the accused to the Schoolmaster. Section 182 relates only to cases of information given to Officials with the intention of causing or with knowledge that it is likely to cause, that Official to do or omit to do something, which he ought not to do or omit to do, or to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. This is a distinct offence from that describe...
Tag this Judgment!Bomanji Cowasjee Vs. the Chief Judge and C. of the Chief Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR3
Davey, J.1. This is an appeal from an order, dated the 21st March 1906, of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, by which order the appellant was dismissed from his office as an advocates of that Court.2. The appellant was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn on the 17th November 1891, having previously been admitted as an attorney of the Calcutta High Court in 1879 and from the year 1881 was an advocate of the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon until the establishment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma and from that date he has been an advocate of the last named Court.3. On the 9th March 1908 the appellant was served with an order of the Chief Court whereby he was called upon to show cause Avhy he should not be dismissed or suspended from his office as advocate of the Court in the event of two charges which had been framed by the Court, or either of them, being found to be true. These charges were as follows:-1. That you whilst employed as an advocate for the prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.B. Sarbadhicary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR9
Andrew Scoble, J.1. The petitioner in this case, Mr. Sashi Bhushan Sarbadhicary, is a barrister of Gray's Inn, and an advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;, and he complains of an order of that Court whereby he was suspended from practice in that Court for a period of four years, from the 5th July 1906, for 'gross misconduct.' The grounds of his appeal are nine in number, and as two of them relate to the competency of the Court to make the order, it will be convenient to dispose of them in the first instance.2. The first objection is that the Court 'had no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant for alleged misconduct, he being a member of the English Bar.'3. In the opinion of their Lordships this objection is untenable. By Section 7 of the Letters Patent by which it was established, the High Court is authorized, and empowered 'to approve, admit, and enrol such, and so many advocates... as to the said High Court shall seem meet';, and by Section 8 the High Court is emp...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Satar Ilahibax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR30
Batty, J.1. The conviction and sentence must be set aside in this case. In the first place, the only summons on the record to the accused, purports to be a witness summons and the accused now objects that he was not even aware that he was placed in the position of an accused. In the next place it appears from the report of the Chief Constable, that what information was obtained on investigation showed that the accused had done no more than build on the land purchased by him from the complainant as a building site: and, so far as the complainant was concerned, the claim for passage to that land, if made, could amount to no more than such private right of way as is specially exempted from the operation of Section 341 by the exception to Section 339, Indian Penal Code, defining wrongful restraint. The accused throughout set up a private title to the land, negativing the suggestion that the land was a public thoroughfare-a point on which the Magistrate seems to have made no enquiry.2. We t...
Tag this Judgment!Gujrajmati TeoraIn Vs. Saiyid Akbar Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR83
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissing, with costs, a regular suit brought for the purpose of annulling a sale in execution proceedings.2. The sale was held under a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur by the Collector of Basti. The sale proclamation was duly issued. The sale was fixed for the 20th of February 1897. It was held on the 23rd, but before the Collector had finished the sales listed for the 20th.3. It appears that an order was made ex parte on the 1lth of February 1897 by the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur staying the sale. On the 16th of February the Collector of Basti, in obedience to this order, struck the proceedings off the pending file. However, on the 22nd, in consequence of notice received from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, from which it appeared that the Order staying the sale had been set aside, the case was then brought forward, as the Collector no...
Tag this Judgment!Shahar Banoo Vs. Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR85
Arthur Wilson, J.1. Hajee Ahmed Bindaneem, a Shiah Mohammedan, died in 1882, leaving a will by which he devoted the one-third of his estate of which he was capable of disposing to religious and charitable purposes. The testator left six sons and one daughter, of whom the eldest was a son Mahomed Jaffer, the first respondent and the second a daughter, Shahar Banoo, the appellant. In his will the testator said, 'I appoint my obedient son Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem my legal executor. And the superintendence of all the affairs relating to the heritage and the sools is entrusted to Aga Ahmed Ispahan!. ' He further said :-5. The furniture, such as lamps, utensils for cooking, carpets, silver alams, silver sarposh and all the articles belonging to the Emambara, shall not be the subject of inheritance and shall be used by the execute in performance of taziadari rites.6. The executor shall, after taking possession, with the information of the Nazir, of the sools, purchase therewith (in the) s...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Chandra Kunwar Vs. Chaudhuri Narpat Singh and Raja Makund Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR267
Atkinson, J.1. The two suits out of which, those consolidated appeals arise were brought to recover from the appellant possession of certain zenmindari property, consisting of villages and gardens situate in the district of Budaun.2. In one of these suits (No. 129 of 1899) Raja Makund Singh Was the sole plaintiff, while in the second (No. 128 of 1899), certain persons to whom it was alleged he had purported to sell and convey the property sought to be recovered in that suit were the plaintiff's and Makund Singh was joined as a 'pro formi defendant. The evidence was taken in the second of these suits, but, as the questions arising in both suits were practically identical, they were tried together and the evidence taken in one was, by arrangement between the parties, treated as having been taken in both and used for the purposes of both.3. The property in dispute formerly belonged to Raja Sher Singh, a Raja of the State of Jaipur, who died many years ago and in the events which have happ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »