Mumbai Court June 1906 Judgments
Narayan Shankar Rajwade Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR543
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. A suit has been brought against three defendants in the District Court of Poona. 2. Two of these defendants at the time of the institution of the suit were actually and voluntarily residing within the local limits of the Poona Court.3. The third was not.4. Since the institution of the suit, an application has been made on behalf of the plaintiff for leave under Section 17(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.5. That leave was granted and it is to the order granting that leave that exception is now taken by the defendant affected thereby. He maintains that leave could not be granted after the institution of the suit.6. No doubt the words of the Section are susceptible of that meaning, but the concluding provision as to acquiescence makes it clear that a defect at the institution can be subsequently cured, for obviously there could be no acquiescence at the times of the institution. And so we think, there is no necessity for reading the words of the proviso i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Cassumali Javerbhai Pirbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR883
Scott, J.1. In this case the property of the minor is estimated to be of the value of upwards of 14 lacs of rupees, more than 4 lacs of which is invested in Bombay in immoveable property, 2 1/4 lacs on mortgage in immoveable property and the balance for the most part in authorised trustee securities.2. The sanction of the Court is now asked for the investment by the guardians of Rs. 6,50,000 by sale of that amount of the trustee securities and re-investment in the purchase of certain house property situate at the junction of Church Gate Street and Esplanade Road.3. In the case of trustees in whom property is vested the Court could not apart from any special investment clause in the instrument of trust sanction a change of investment into any securities other than those mentioned or referred to in Section 20 of the Indian Trusts Act: see Section 40.4. Guardians are in a fiduciary position and I think the Court should ordinarily be guided by the rules embodied in the Trusts Act in sancti...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ghanasham Ramchandra Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR538
Russell, J.1. In this case the accused, whom I shall call Dada Saheb, was charged before Mr. Fry and two assessors at Satara as follows:-That you, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence, i.e., the murder of Narayan Sonar, had been committed, caused evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender in that you ordered the corpse of Narayan to be burnt with undue haste and ordered the cleansing of the blood stains in Mahadeo's temple and further with the same intention gave information respecting the offence which you knew or believed to be false in that you caused a panchnama to be framed in which an opinion was expressed that death was due to snake-bite.2. It appears that the deceased Narayan Sonar was a young man and an actor by profession and that he died either on the night of the 18th or morning of the 19th March 1905 and there is no doubt that there are suspicious circumstances with regard to his death.3. The present ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasang Himatsang Vs. Mohansang Hamirsang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR705
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Bombay, dated the 7th March 1899, which reversed a Decree of the Assistant Judge of Broach of the 10th November 1897. The question raised is one of fact, whether the appellant Chandrasang, the principal defendant in the suit, is entitled to the name he bears, and to the estates which prior to the suit he had long enjoyed, as the son and heir of Himatsang, or whether, as maintained by the plaintiff in the suit, now the respondent, the real Ohandrasang died in infancy and the appellant was fraudulently substituted in his place. The First Court held the appellant to be the genuine Chandrasang, the High Court thought otherwise.2. Himatsang, who died on the 20th January 1882, was the Thakor of Matar, and as such was possessed of estates in the district of Broach and in Baroda territory, which by custom descended to a single male heir in accordance with the rule of primogeniture. He left surviving him four ...
Tag this Judgment!Sirdar Meru Vs. Jetha Bhai Amirbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR513
Russell, J.1. In this case the complainant applied for revision of the order of the Magistrate, 2nd Class An and, dated the 2nd October 1905, which dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, his complaint against one Jethabhai and another on a charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that according to the case for prosecution he was assaulted by these two persons within the Baroda Territory and the Magistrate has found that his leg was completely broken in that territory. But it also appears that the complainant was brought into the hospital at Anand in consequence of this injury and that he was not able to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of over a month.3. The Magistrate has held that he has no jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.4. Section 179 Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows ;-When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudilal Manji Vs. Morarji Premji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR522
Scott, J.1. This is a suit which was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiff, who is a boy of six years of age, by a man named Shamji Muljee as next friend. It appears that after the institution of the suit Shamji Muljee disappeared from Bombay, and thereafter a woman named Radhabai applied to the Court for an order under g. 447 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of a new next friend. The application was opposed by the first and second defendants, who were two of the executors of the father of the boy, on the ground that under the father's will a woman named Panbai had been appointed guardian of the person of the minor and that, therefore, under Section 440 of the Code the suit was a suit which could not be instituted except with the leave of the Court, which had not been obtained. That point was not decided by the learned Judge but by consent an order was made that Radhabai should be appointed next friend, she undertaking through her counsel to be responsible for all costs...
Tag this Judgment!Abaji Annaji Vs. Luxman Tukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR553
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I. E., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sue for redemption asking that an account may be taken under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. Their case in the plaint is that the transaction in respect of which they have brought this suit is a mortgage.3. The defendant by his written statement asserts that the land was not mortgaged to him, but sold out-and-out.4. If the document evidencing the transaction be looked at (and that alone), then it is clear that the transaction was, as the defendant states, a sale out-and-out.5. The lower Courts, however, have decided this suit in the plaintiffs' favour holding that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale.6. The defendant appeals from the decree of the lower appellate Court.7. For the appellant, in this Court, it is pointed out that neither Court has observed the principles established in the case of Balkishen Das v. W.F. Legge ILR (1899) All. 149 : 2 Bom L.R. 522, and that no attention has been paid to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannepalli Suryanarayana Vs. Pucha Venkataramana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR700
Andrew Scoble, J.1. In this case there is no dispute about the facts, but two questions of law arise, both of which are of considerable importance.2. Venkata Narasu, a Brahmin landholder in the district of Ganjain in the Madras Presidency, died intestate and without issue on the 6th of February 1861, leaving the second respondent, Venkata Ratnamma his widow and sole heiress, him surviving. Before his death he verbally authorized his wife to adopt to him, and it is found by the learned Judges of the High Court that the authority was 'in general terms, requiring her to adopt so as to continue his line, and to provide for his spiritual benefit. He did not indicate any particular person for adoption, either by name or otherwise, and placed no restriction whatever on his wife's discretion.3. Twenty-four years after her husband's death, on the 1st May 1885, the widow adopted a son of one of her sisters, but this child died in February 1886, and twelve years later, on the 10th June 1898, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahamadbuksh Karimbuksh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR507
Aston, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by nine persons convicted at a trial conducted by the Sessions Judge, Belgaum, with the aid of a Jury of the offence of dacoity, Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each to seven years rigorous imprisonment.2. A report has been called for from the Sessions Judge on the following points: -(1) Whether any and what objection was taken to the commitment on the ground that the proviso to Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, had not been observed, and if so, at what stage of the trial and under what circumstances was the objection taken.(2) Did the Sessions Judge accept the commitment under Section 532, Criminal Procedure Code, and if so, was this done after perusal of the proceedings as required by that section And did the Sessions Judge consider the accused had not been injured by the commitment ?(3) Are there any further remarks or explanation that the Sessions Judge desires to make or furnish in reference to the points raised ?3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunathji Mulchand Vs. Varjiwandas Madanjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR525
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff, as the constituted attorney for his mother Rambhabai, has obtained a grant to himself of letters of administration to the estate of Jivan Cursonji deceased for his mother's use and benefit, and he has brought this suit (amongst other things) to establish title to certain shares in the Maneckji Petit Manufacturing Company Ld.. as forming part of that estate.2. It is conceded that the shares were bought with the proceeds of other shares in the same Company, which at one time formed part of Jivan Cursonji's estate, and the only defence made before us is that there was a gift of those shares which displaces the title set up by the plaintiff.3. The only question, therefore, on this appeal is, first, whether the gift has been established as a fact, and, secondly, if so whether the gift is valid in law.4. Jivan Cursonji died on the 22nd of March 1892 intestate and without issue at Porbunder in Kathiawar, leaving a sole widow named Mankuverbai.5. Part of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »