Mumbai Court February 1907 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ganesh Damodar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR353
Chandavarkar, J.1. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that Section 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule No. XI made by the Government of Bombay under that section regulating the payment, on the part of Government, of the expenses of complainants and witnesses in cases coming before the criminal Courts, invest the Magistrate trying a warrant case with a discretionary power exerciseable by him within the limits specified in the rule itself. The question, then, is whether in the present case, the offences charged against the accused being admitted to be bailable, ' the prosecution has been instituted or is being carried on by, or under the orders of, or with the sanction of Government, or of any Judge, Magistrate, or other public officer.' There is no material before us on which we should be justified in holding that the prosecution has been instituted or carried on by, or under the orders of, or with the sanction of Government. But Mr. Khare, appearing for the accused, ar...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nabi Fakira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR250
1. We are of opinion that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's view is correct. The direction in Clause (2) of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code and its absence in Clause (1) shows, on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that the Legislature does not render the writing of 'reasons' necessary where an accused person is discharged after the trying Magistrate has heard all the evidence for the prosecution. The provisions of Section 367, Criminal Procedure Code, substantially support that conclusion. It is on the termination of a trial that judgment has to be pronounced. A judgment is a decision which decides a case finally so far as the Court trying the case is concerned, but an order of discharge is not a final order because there is nothing to prevent a Magistrate, after he has once discharged an accused person under Section 253, from inquiring again into the case against him. A discharge, not operating as an acquittal, leaves the matter at large for all purposes of ju...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Chunilal Vs. Gopilal Manilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR316
Khareghat, J.1. This suit was filed for the administration of the estate of Vrijvalabhdas Dwarkadas deceased in accordance with his will, dated 12th May 1888, by his daughter Somi. She died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by her minor son Nandlal. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that it was not maintainable in its present form on various grounds. The Joint Judge has in first appeal confirmed the decree on the same grounds as well as on the ground of limitation. I cannot agree with them.2. I fail to see how the suit is bad in form. Somi is a residuary legatee under the will of the deceased. The contending defendant Dhiraj, widow of the deceased and step-mother of Somi, is admittedly in possession of the bulk of the property of the deceased in accordance with the will. She was appointed trustee of the property by the Court in 1892. during Somi's minority and has continued in possession since, claiming partly in her own right to maintenance and part...
Tag this Judgment!Thama Vs. Govind Bilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR401
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues as a usufructuary mortgagee to enforce his rights under a mortgage-bond.2. He has however failed on the ground that the bond on which he sues has not been proved and accordingly his suit has been dismissed with costs.3. It is under these circumstances that he appeals to this Court.4. The bond itself is not forthcoming and the District Judge has held that it is lost; but he admitted a certified copy produced from the Registrar's Office.5. His finding however is that the bond is not proved to have been executed by the defendants.6. Admittely there is no oral evidence adduced in proof of the execution of the bond. That was for no fault of the plaintiff as the writer and the attesting witnesses are deceased and apparently there was no one whom the plaintiff could usefully call for the purpose of proving the execution of the document.7. The learned Judge says that 'there is no satisfactory evidence of payment of consideration or of former dealings...
Tag this Judgment!Bachoo Harkisondas Vs. Mankorebai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR646
Arthur Wilson, J.1. In the year 1900 two brothers, Hurkisondas and Bhagwandas, formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law as in force in Bombay and as such they held large ancestral property.2. On the 14th September 1900, Hurkisondas died without male. issue, but leaving his widow pregnant. On the 30th November of the same year Bhagwandas made his will, by which he purported to make certain dispositions of the family property and also directed his widow to adopt a son. The terms of this will be considered hereafter. On the 17th December following Bhagwandas died and on the next day Hurkisondas.' widow gave birth to a son Bachoo, the present plaintiff and appellant. On the 17th February 1901, Bhagwandas' widow adopted Nagur-das as son to her deceased husband, with the consent prescribed by his will.3. The parts of that will material for the present purpose are the following:-4. By Clause 2 he appointed executors and trustees.4. I have a daughter by name Navulbai. I direc...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Narayan Vs. Dattu Vasudeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1099
Chandavarkar, J.1. Both the lower Courts have found that the fraud alleged by the plaintiffs has not been proved. The ground upon which the District Judge has confirmed the decree of the Assistant Judge is that the decree obtained by the defendant intermas of the award, was obtained' invalidly and ex parte' against the minor defendants who were not properly represented. But Sitabai, who represented the minors Narayan and Bapu before the arbitrators, having died, the Nazir of the District Court was appointed their guardian ad litem in the suit brought to file the award and obtain a decree in terms of it. That was an effective representation of the minors. It is not alleged that the Nazir had no notice of the suit. All that is found by the Courts below is that the Nazir did not defend the suit because he had no instructions. But that circumstance cannot affect the validity of the decree. The mere fact that the decree was obtainedex parte does not make it illegal or invalid. It would of c...
Tag this Judgment!Narandas Ramji Vs. Narandas Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR287
Russell, J.1. In this case the two plaintiffs, Narandas Ramji and Cursondas Ramdas Bhanji, the executors of the last will of Ladhoo Kara, herein after referred to as L.K., sue the defendants (1) the said Narandas Ramji, (2) Damodar Ramji, (3) Nagindas Doolabdas and (4) Rattonji Cursetji Wadia, the executors of the last will of Ramji Lukhmidas hereinafter referred to as R.L.2. It appears that L.K. and his uncle R.L. carried on business in Bombay and elsewhere in partnership in. the name of R.L. from 1884 to 1900, L.K's share beingf (sic) the and R.L.'s share (sic)3. In 1891 the said firm of R.L. became entitled to 1/4 share in a Mill called the Hongkong Mills, other sharers, being Gordhandas Cursondas and Govindjee Thakorsey and Co., hereinafter referred to as G. T. and Co.4. In 1894 R.L., Gordhandas Cursondas and G. T and Co. converted the said Mill partnership into a Joint Stock Company with 750 shares, capital of Rs. 1000 each and the said R.L. took 187 shares in the said Company, of...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Noor Mahomed Vs. N.C. Macleod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR274
Russell, J.1. Although the amount claimed in this suit is a little over Rs. 1800 only, the facts in it have necessarily taken up some time and a novel question of law has been raised in it.2. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff who is a money lender residing in Bombay, against (1) Abdoola Joosub Abba, hereinaftor referred to as A. J., (2) Jan Mahomed Joosub Abba, hereinafter referred to as J.M., (3) Saffarabai, widow of Joosub Abba, hereinafter referred to as J.A. and (4) Sooleman Abdoola Joosub, a minor son of defendant (1) A. J.3. A.J. became insolvent on the 28th April 1905 and Mr. Macleod, Official Assignee, is now defendant 1 on the record in his place.4. J.M. died intestate in Bombay on the 27th July 1906. leaving his only heir Bayabai, his widow, who is now defendant 2 and is a minor. Saffarabai, widow of J.A., is still alive and has been appointed guardian ad litem of Bayabai and Sooleman Abdoola Joosub.5. J.A., it appears, carried on a tailoring business in a shop, ...
Tag this Judgment!Narrondas Ramji and anr. Vs. Narrondas Ramji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom418
1. In this case the two plaintiffs, Narandas Ramji and Cursondas Ramdas Bhanji, the executors of the last will of Ladhoo Kara, sue the defendants (1) the said Narandas Ramji, (2) Damodar Ramji, (3) Nagindas Doolabdas, and (4) Rattonji Cursetji Wadia, the executors of the last will of Ramji Lukhmidas.2. It appears that Ladhoo Kara and his uncle Ramji Lukhmidas carried on business in Bombay and elsewhere in partnership in the name of Ramji Lukhmidas from 1884 to 1960, Ladhoo Kara's share being 3/16ths and Ramji Lukhmidas' share 13/16ths.3. In 1891 the said firm of Ramji Lukhmidas became entitled to 1/4 share in a Mill called the Hongkong Mills, other sharers being Gordhandas Cursondas and Govindjee Thakersey and Co.4. In 1894 Ramji Lukhmidas, Gordhandas Cursondas, and Govindjee Thakersey and Co. converted the said Mill partnership into a Joint Stock Company with 750 shares capital of Rs. 1,000 each, and the said Ramji Lukhmidas took 187 shares in the said Company, oil which 177 were in h...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Gulabbai Vs. Shri Datgarji Mohangarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR393
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree passed by the Joint Judge of Ahmedabad reversing the decree of the Joint Subordinate Judge, at Ahmedabad, in Suit No. 463 of 1903 and awarding the claim of the respondent (plaintiff).2. The plaintiff sued in the Court of first instance to recover Rs. 2,217 as being due upon a document executed by the appellant Bai Gulabbai on the 25th January 1902.3. The defence of the appellant was, that no cash was paid on the document as stated in it, but that the real consideration for it was, that the plaintiff who was then assisting one Kevalpuri in a litigation between her and the said Kevalpuri, should not assist him or render him any service.4. In the Court of first instance three issues were raised; one of which, the material one, was this :-Is the bond in suit without consideration? Is its consideration unlawful?5. The burden of proof that the bond was without consideration or that the consideration was unlawful no doubt in the first...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »