Mumbai Court February 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. Kavtik Chaitram and Narayan Baldev Palwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR241
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. Narayan Baldev Palwa has been convicted of breach of the restriction specified in a notice issued under Section 27 of Bombay Regulation XII of 1827, and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment.2. The matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge and he recommends that the conviction should be reversed.3. There is nothing on the record which shows that any case had been made for action against the accused under Section 27 of Regulation XII. He is not shown in accordance with legal procedure to have been suspected person, and it does not appear that his assent to the measures adopted was ever taken.4. Under these circumstances, we think that the Sessions Judge was right in the view he took of the case.5. We, therefore, reverse the conviction....
In Re: Venganat Swaroopathil and Valia Nambidi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR374
Davey, J.1. Their Lordships do not think that this is a case in which they can advise His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal. Their Lordships desire to add that it would be convenient if the High Court, on future occasions, in refusing a certificate for leave to appeal, would be good enough to state the grounds on which they refused it....
Emperor Vs. Ismail Rustomkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR236
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The first accused brought a little girl of 10 or 11 to Bombay, and when she came here she undoubtedly was in his possession. It is clear that the girl passed from his possession into the possession of accused No. 2, and that accused No. 1 disposed of and accused No. 2 obtained possession of the girl in Bombay.2. I further hold that the disposal and the obtaining of possession was with the intent that such minor should be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution. The learned Magistrate, however, thought that the fact that this little girl had been employed as a prostitute at Manmad deprived her of the protection that Sections 372 and 373 afford to minors. I cannot agree with this view : it is not required by the words of the spirit of the sections.3. I am therefore of opinion that the acquittal by the Magistrate is erroneous, and that both the accused should be convicted.4. The sentence that we pass on each of the accused is two years' rigorous...
Emperor Vs. Bhaskar Balvant Bhopatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR421
Batty, J.1. Gentlemen of the Jury, you have heard this case very patiently and listened very carefully to the evidence placed before you, as well as to the very able utterances of counsel on both sides. No doubt, it will not be necessary for me to say much in addition to what has already been said, but I trust that I may be able to give some little assistance in placing before you the essentials of the offence with which the accused is charged, so that you may be able to apply correct principles to the facts which appear in the evidence and especially in Exhibit C, the article which is the subject of the charge.2. Now the charge against the accused is that he being the proprietor and publisher of a certain vernacular newspaper entitled the Bhala, under the heading or title translated 'A Durbar in Hell' on page 2 of that newspaper dated 11th October 1905 did attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by Law in British...
In Re: Ralli Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR234
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The point submitted for our decision is covered by authority binding on us, (see Rupchand Chittarshet v. Barhuvalad Sukaa (1884) P.J. 257 and in conformity with the determination in that case we must hold that the document should be stamped as a bond. It may perhaps be doubted whether this consequence was contemplated when the Act was passed; but we must construe the Act as it stands; if amendment be needed, it must be by the Legislature....
Venkappa Timappa Vs. Fakirgowda Govindgowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR346
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal raises the question how far an adopted son is bound by an agreement, made on the occasion of his adoption between his natural parent and adoptive mother, whereby the latter is enabled to give away immoveable property that otherwise would have come to him as adopted son.2. Under the agreement in this case the adoptive mother has purported to give away 16 acres, out of a total of 27. Of the 16 acres 4 were given to the defendant, her brother, and it is to recover these 4 acres alone that this suit has been brought by the adopted son. The first Court has decided in the plaintiffs favour, but this decree has been reversed on appeal.3. The general question involved is not free from doubt, but the special circumstances of this case are in the plaintiff's favour. 4. Accepting the test suggested by Sir Charles Farran in Ravji Vinayakrau Jaggannath Shankarsett v. Lakshmibai I.L.R. (1887) 11 Bom. 381, the stipulations in the agreement were (in our o...
Mutsaddi Lal Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR371
Andrew Scoble, J.1. The suit which gives occasion to this Appeal was brought by one Balmakund, claiming to be the reversionary heir of one Badri Das, deceased, against Mussamat Jamna, the widow of Badri Das, and Kundan Lal, the present respondent, whom she was alleged to have illegally adopted after her husband's death. Balmakund and Jamna have both died since the institution of the suit. The present appellants are Balmakund's representatives, and the whole question between them and the surviving respondent is whether the adoption of the latter by Mussamat Jamna was a valid adoption.2. Badri Das was one of a family of Marwari Banias from Jaisulmere, who had settled at Jalalabad, in theSaharunpur district of the United Provinces, where he died childless on the27th October 1888. After his death, his widow enteredinto possession of his property, in which she had, at all events, a life estate. On the 17th of August 1891 she executed a deedof sale of a village which had been purchased with ...
Bai Dahi Vs. Hargovandas Kuberdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR229
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for Letters of Administration made by the appellant Bai Dahi, widow of Tribhowandas, to the estate of her husband.2. The application has been dismissed by the District Court.3. It is from that decree of dismissal that this appeal has been presented.4. The first objection taken to the decree is that it follows on a judgment which was not pronounced as required by the law.5. Section 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that 'the Court, after the evidence has been duly taken, and the parties have been heard either in person or by their respective pleaders or recognized agents, shall pronounce judgment in open Court either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.'6. It is said that the judgment in this case was not pronounced in open Court, and this is confirmed by the report for which we have called.7. We strongly disapprove of any failure to observ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›