Mumbai Court August 1906 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Kothia Navalya Bhil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR740
Aston, J.1. The appellant, a Bhil named Kothia valad Navalya was one of the persons accused of murder in the case of King-Emperor v. Godia and 5Ors. He accepted a tender of pardon made to him by the Committing Magistrate on the conditions set out in Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) and was examined as a witness for the Crown at the trial of his accomplices in the Sessions Court ofKhandesh, for an offence of murder.2. At the trial he, according to the case presented by the learned Government Pleader for the Crown in the appeal now before us, made ' a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to such offence, and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof and so far had fully complied with the condition on which pardon was tendered and accepted.3. The Sessions Judge nevertheless, at the conclusion of the trial of the abovementioned case in which the accomplices were c...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bai Vs. Rama Bala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR764
Aston, J.1. In this case the lower Court has entirely misconceived the nature of the issue remanded for a finding: having treated it as an issue purely of law, instead of what it was intended to be-an issue of fact. The interlocutory judgment stated, 'the pleaders before us admit that the only dispute with regard to the eastern moiety is, as to whether Exhibit 74, the sale deed by Khando to Daolatrao is a mortgage transaction or a sale transaction,' and the issue remanded was accordingly, whether Exhibit 74, dated 8th October 1884, represents a mortgage transaction.2. The lower Court was therefore required to find a question of fact, whether the real transaction between the parties as shown by the evidence, and not as might appear from Exhibit 74 taken alone, was a mortgage.3. Mr. Desai for the appellant has contended that, although the direction of this Court has not been carried out and although it is undoubted that the issue remanded was intended to be an issue of fact a finding on ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhagi Vedu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR697
Aston, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Nasik agreeing with the assessors has convicted the accused Bhagi, one of the wives of Vedu Lonari, of the offence of murder of one Shankar who was the child of her co-wife.2. Mr. Gupte has argued the case for the accused and has brought forward every circumstance which can be possibly urged in favour of the accused. But notwithstanding all that he has urged I am of opinion that it is clearly established that the accused did quarrel with her co-wife, that the child Shankar was last seen alive in her company being taken by her towards the well in which his body was found on the following morning. I am also satisfied that the confession which the accused made on the 16th May to the Second Class Magistrate was a voluntary confession in which she has truly stated the motive with which she committed the crime. She states there with some detail that she quarrelled with her co-wife Baija that Baija had taunted her and that she was in an inflamed ...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal Balabhai Vs. N.C. Macleod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR794
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This application arises out of an order by the Subordinate Judge purporting to release property from attachment under Section 280 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The application is made to us under Section 622, and We have had considerable doubt as to whether to intefere or not, but having regard to the fact that, in our opinion, the Judge has not merely committed an irregularity in his investigation, but has held no such investigation as is contemplated by Section 280, we have decided to intervene. At the same time we desire to keep strictly within the limits indicated by Section 622.3. We express no opinion on the facts or on the law.4. The execution proceedings arose out of a suit for money in which a decree was passed. There was an attachment before judgment and subsequently after decree an application for sale.5. This was not preceded by any attachment after decree, the attachment before judgment being operative under Section 490 for the purposes ...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Nathu Vs. Nathu Shamji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom54
Scott, J.1. Shamji Premji, a Bhatia, died intestate on the 26th July 1898, leaving him surviving two sons Nathoo Shamji and Dharmsey Shamji, and property which, is alleged to have been of the value of upwards of a lakh of rupees.2. After the death of Shamji, his sons Nathoo and Dharmsey, being desirous of partitioning the estate, referred the question of partition to the arbitration of Mr. Vithaldas Damodar Thakeraey and that gentleman made his award on the 18th July 1905.3. The present suit was filed on the 24th November 1905 by one of Nathoo's sons Jairam against Nathoo and his two brothers, Nathoo's other sons, Mathuradas and Lakhmidas, for the partition of that portion of Shamji's estate which fell to Nathoo's share; and by an amendment, Motibai, wife of Nathoo, was added as a party to the suit.4. The first two questions which are raised in the issues 1 and 2 may be quickly disposed of.5. The first issue is whether the first defendant is possessed of any ancestral property over and...
Tag this Judgment!Abu Haji Sulleman Vs. Haji Jan Mahomed Haji Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR648
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the two orders of the Commissioner in Insolvency made on the 6th September 1905 and the 14th February 1906.2. On the 16th May 1905 a petition was presented in the Insolvency Court by Haji Jan Mahomed Haji Mahomed and Haji Jakeria Haji Ahmed praying that the firm of Ebrahim Haji O.C. J. Sulleman and Company, and that of Tyeb Haji Sulleman and Co., and the members of those firms, might be adjudicated insolvents. 3.The petition alleged that the members of the firm were Abu Haji Ebrahim Haji Sulleman, Aboo Haji Sulleman, Moosa Haji Tyeb, Abdulla Haji Tyeb and Abdul Rahim Haji Tyeb. An order of adju- dication was made by Mr. Justice Batty on the 16th May 1905. 4. Moosa Haji Tyeb, Abdulla Haji Tyeb, and Abdul Rahim Haji Tyeb are admittedly minors and the order of adjudication against them has been set aside.5. Ebrahim Haji Sulleman is said to be in East Africa and up to this time, as far as we are aware, no objection has been taken by...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevpuri Kailaspuri Vs. Gopaldas Tribhuwandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR756
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is a suit brought under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and though the remarks of the learned Judge suggest that he viewed the suit as one which did not properly fall within that section, he passed a decree for a scheme as provided by it; and from this decree no appeal has been preferred by the respondent before us.2. The appellant objects that in settling the scheme regard has not been had to his position in connection with the temple.3. It appears from the judgment of the learned District Judge that before him the plaintiffs asked for a declaration of their hereditary right to officiate as pujaris and managers of the temple as against the defendants' assertions that they are merely employees of the Punch. They go on to cite the opinion of the Advocate General in these terms :-If the Court decides to frame a scheme under Clause (e) of Section 539, it should decide this question(Schedule of plaintiff's right). Not only is there nothi...
Tag this Judgment!Parmappa Basangauda Vs. Shiddappa Giriappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR685
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. The principal point that arises on this appeal is whether for the purpose of succession to the non-technical Stridhan of a widow who has died without issue the whole brother of her deceased husband is to be preferred to his half-brother.2. This case conies from Dharwar and must be determined by the rules of the Mitakshara so far as they apply.3. Now it is not disputed that the deceased was married in an approved form, and where that is so the Mitakshara in Ch. II Section 11, pl. 11, as translated by Mr. Colebrooke, says 'Of a woman dying without issue as before stated, and who had become a wife by any of the four modes of marriage denominated Brahma, Daiva, Arsha and Prajapatya, the whole property, as before described, belongs in the first place to her husband. On failure of him it goes to his nearest kinsmen, Sapindas allied by funeral oblations. '4. It is pointed out by Mr. Justice Telang in Gojubai v. Shrimant Shahajirao Maloji Raje Bhosle ILR (18...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mukund Bhaskarshet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR694
Aston, J.1. The Criminal Procedure Code does not require notice to be given to an accused person before a further inquiry is ordered under Section 437. It is a matter of discretion dependent on the circumstances of each case. See In re Ruxmani Bhogilal (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 479.2. The argument that such an order under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, is one to the prejudice of an accused person and therefore notice is always necessary, is in my opinion answered by the fact that the Criminal Courts are daily making orders not less to the prejudice of accused persons in the initial stage of prosecutions, such as issuing orders for arrest, without previous notice, under authority of the Code.3. Again a dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 or a discharge under Section 253 is not an acquittal such as operates to prevent a fresh trial, without the dismissal or discharge being set aside, see Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, and see also Queen-Empress v. Shankar ILR (1888) 13 Bom....
Tag this Judgment!Darves Haji Mahamad Sidik Vs. JainudIn Haji Badrudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR751
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit relating to a public charity and purporting to be brought under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The circumstances under which such a suit can be instituted are indicated in the section : it may be instituted by the Advocate General acting ex officio or by two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General.3. This suit was not instituted by the Advocate General, so it must be seen whether it can be said, that two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General, instituted this suit. In our opinion it cannot.4. What is meant by the institution of the suit is set forth in detail in Chapter V of the Code.5. It is conceded that the institution of the suit within the meaning of Chapter V was not by two persons, but by one only; and the fact that the Advocate General consented t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »