Mumbai Court April 1906 Judgments
The Municipal Commissioner Vs. Mathoorabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR457
Russell, J.1. This is a special case stated by the Acting Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, but inasmuch as the question as put by him did not exactly meet the case, the following question was formulated by the Court with the consent of the parties, viz.-Whether the vacant space infront of Mathoorabai's house when, and if, laid out as a means of passage with houses on both sides and when, and if, used as such by the occupiers of such house, and not by the public generally, will constitute a street within the meaning of the Bombay Municipal Act.' (Bombay Act III of 1888).2. The facts stated shortly are as follows:-The Municipal Commissioner for Bombay laid a complaint against defendant Mathoorabai for an offence punishable under the Building bye laws No. 42, she being the purchaser of a plot No. 15, from one Tribhovandas Mangaldas. It appears that this Tribhovandas owned a large plot of ground abutting on the south side of the Girgaum Back Road and about two years ago he divided thi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nensi Hansraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR420
1. The applicants are persons accused of a non-bailable offence before the Chief Presidency Magistrate to whom an application was made that they might be released on bail.2. As however there appeared to the Magistrate to be reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants were guilty of the offence of which they were accused, he refused the application in conformity with the provisions of Section 497, Sub-section (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. So it is that a similar application is made to this Court.4. It has been laid down by a full Bench of the Madras High Court in Kamaraja Pandia Naick Weir, 3rd Edn. p. 1111 a that the rule in respect of non-bailable offences is that bail is not to be taken, except in special circumstances; and so the application being opposed, the Court has to see in this case whether at this stage of the proceeding there are these special circumstances.5. It appears to us that there are not, and that at this stage no sufficient case has been made th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. H.C. Bayne
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR414
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The accused has been convicted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code of rashly and negligently driving a motorcar on a public road so as to endanger human life, and he has been sentenced to suffer one day's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment, his license also has been suspended and he has been declared disqualified from obtaining a license to drive a motor vehicle.2. The sentence passed by the Magistrate falls short of that which would have entitled the accused to appeal, and so this application is made to us in revision.3. But in an application for revision it is the ordinary rule to accept the lower Court's findings of fact, and so Mr. Lowndes has limited his arguments to asking for a revision of the sentence on the ground that the punishment is excessive, and that this is due to the Magistrate's having allowed himself to be influenced by considerations, for which there was no l...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Lali Vs. Murli Dhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR402
Andrew Scoble, J.1. The suit in this case was brought by Murli Dhar, the present respondent, against Musammat Lali, the present appellant, for possession of immoveable property belonging to the estate of one Dhanraj, deceased. The appellant is the widow of Dhanraj, and the respondent claimed the property under a double title ; first, as the adopted son of Dhanraj, and, secondly, under the terms of a will contained in a wajib ul arz alleged to have been duly recorded, in relation to a village lorming part of the property, by Dhanraj during his lifetime. The result of the litigation in India was to set aside the adoption as invalid according to Hindu law ; but the High Court at Allahabad gave the plaintiff a decree for halt the property claimed, on the ground that the clause in the wajib-ul-arz upon which the plaintiff relied was ' a document of a testamentary nature,' under which it was the intention of Dhanraj to make a bequest in favour of the plaintiff of a half-share in his property...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji Cursetji Vs. the Scinde and Punjab Cotton Press Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR478
Russell, J.1. This is a very unusual case. It appears that Sorabji, the plaintiff, is at present the sole Director of the defendant Company, two former Direct ors, namely Bhagwandas Walji and Lakhmidas Walji, having resigned after the month of February 1905. The plaint says that by a Resolution of the Directors of the Company passed several years ago, it was resolved that three members should form a quorum, but that the plaintiff has not been able to find any record of such Resolution, that the accounts of the Company down to 31st August 1905 have been prepared by the persons managing the affairs of the Company arid should have been passed in due course some time ago, but that the plaintiff has doubts as to whether he can sign those accounts and present them to the Company or call a general meeting of the Company or fill up the vacancies in the Board. Certain shareholders of the Company as well as the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies have been threatening proceedings against the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›