Mumbai Court April 1907 Judgments
Dhanakdhari Singh Vs. Mahabir Pershad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR651
Robertson, J.1. Their Lordships are confronted with this objection to the appeal, that the argument offered to them is on a question of fact-namely that of waiver-which was decided adversely to the present appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and was not submitted for review to the High Court in Calcutta. Accordingly it is out of their Lordships' power to entertain the ground of appeal, it being one of fact which has not been subject to the consideration of the Court below.Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of it....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Atmaram and Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR681
Chandavarkar, J.1. Section 12, Clause (a) of the Bombay City Police Act, under which the order in dispute purports to have been issued, invests the Commissioner of Police with authority to issues such orders as he may deem expedient 'relating, among other objects, to the 'discipline and general government of the Bombay Police Force. The words 'as he may deem expedient' give the Commissioner a wide discretion, which is in express words limited by but two restrictions. First, any order he issues is 'subject to the control of the Governor in Council'; and, secondly, the order must relate to 'discipline and general government of the force.' r If it so relates, it is a lawful order and the only authority that can in that case interfere with the Commissioner's discretion is the Governor in Council. Whether an order of the kind now in question relates to 'discipline and general government of the force' must be determined with reference to the language of the section itself and where that lang...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Pascal Shimau
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR703
Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Cantonment Magistrate of Ahmednagar under Section 13 of the Cantonments Act 13 of 1889, of the offence of supplying liquor to a European soldier. The facts found are that the petitioner, being a servant of the soldier, bought liquor from a shop in obedience to the soldier's directions and gave it to him. The liquor was purchased with the soldier's money. The Magistrate has held that the act of the petitioner in purchasing the liquour and giving it to the soldier amounts to 'supplying ' it to him within the meaning of the term as used in Section 13. The word ' supply' may mean 'to give' or 'to bring' but having regard to the collocation of the words in Section 13 we do not think that it is used in that wide sense, The material words are : If 'any person....knowingly barters, sells or supplies.' It is important to bear in mind that so far the section begins with the word 'barter, ' a word of an inferior degree or limited meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaishankar Nanabhai Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Bombay and the M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR417
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The occasion of this suit is the recent Justices election in the City of Bombay.2. The plaintiff is a retiring Councillor within the moaning of Section 34 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act 1888; the defendants 3 to 18 are, according to the plaint, 'made patties as Councillors claiming to act as such under ' that, election; and defendants 19 to 31 were unsuccessful candidates for election.3. Though by his plaint Mr. Bhaishankar submitted that 'there has been no election at all by the Justices,' and prays that this Court 'may be pleased to declare that there was no general election,' his case as finally developed has been, not that there was no general election, but that no Councillor was elected at the general election.4. The facts on which the plaintiff relies are set foith in his plaint, but stated in its simplest form his case is, that defendant No. 2, the Municipal Commissioner, having once fixed the Justices' election to take place on the 13th of February...
Tag this Judgment!The Government Pleader Vs. Maganlal N. Choksi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR866
Lawerence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 56 of Regulation II of 1827. whereby it is provided that a pleader accused of a criminal offence, or guilty of misbehaviour or neglect of duty, shall be liable to be suspended or dismissed.2. On the basis of that section this petition has been presented by the learned Government Pleader in the ordinary way, praying that the Court will call upon Mr. Maganlal Choksi, whose conduct has been impugned, to show cause, why he should not be suspended or dismissed, or why such other order should not be passed as may seem meet in the exercise of this Court s disciplinary jurisdiction. Mr. Choksi has been practising and still practises as pleader in the Broach District and the petition charges him with conduct bringing him within the disciplinary powers of this Court in five particulars In other words there are five charges brought against him.3. The first charge is that he altered a pursis. I think that it was wrong of him to have do...
Tag this Judgment!Dinsha Sorabji Mody Vs. Dinsha Sorabji Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR488
Davar, J.1. The parties to this suit are interested in the decision of certain questions of law which have arisen in connection with an immoveable property in the village of Ambolee in the suburbs of Bombay. They have entered into an agreement and availed themselves of the provisions of Chapter 38 of the Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Court on the questions which have arisen in connection with the said Ambolee property.2. One Nusservanji Jehangir Wadia was the owner of this property. On the 29th of March 1888 he executed an Indenture of settlement whereby he granted and conveyed to certain Trustees the Ambolee property mentioned in the plaint. He reserved to himself the rents and profits of the said property and the management thereof during his own lifetime and then to his wife and on the death of the survivor of them. The Indenture of settlement provides that the Trustees shall hold the said premises 'in trust for such person or persons or charit...
Tag this Judgment!Wadia and Gandhy and Co. Vs. Purshotum Shivji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR508
Davar, J.1. This is a summons obtained by Messrs. Wadia Gandhy & Co., attorneys of this Court, on the 11th of March 1907, against their client Purshotam Shivji, calling upon him to show cause why he should not pay to them the sum of Rs. 1764-2-0 being the balance of taxed costs payable by him in respect of three suits in which he employed them as his attorneys. This application is made under Rule 859. The sum claimed is due by the respondent Purshotam Shivji to his attorneys under threeallocaturs, copies whereof are annexed to the affidavit of their clerk Paul Phillip Pereira.2. Mr. Inverarity, on behalf of Purshotam Shivji, resisted this application on two grounds. He contended that the applicants were not entitled to proceed by one summons in three different suits and that the claim was barred by the law of Limitation.3. I see no force in the first objection. Although the sum claimed is made up of three smaller sums due in three suits the respondent is not prejudiced by the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Dinshaw Sorabji Mody and anr. Vs. Dinshaw Sorabji Mody and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom472
1. The parties to this suit are interested in the decision of certain questions of law which have arisen in connection with an immoveable property in the village of Ambolee in the suburbs of Bombay, They have entered into an agreement and availed themselves of the provisions of Chapter 38 of the Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Court on the questions which have arisen in connection with the said Ambolee property.2. One Nusserwanji Jehangir Wadia was the owner of this property. On the 29th of March 18S8 he executed an indenture of settlement whereby he granted and conveyed to certain trustees the Ambolee property mentioned in the plaint. He reserved-to himself the rents and profits of the said property and the management thereof during his own lifetime and then to his wife. On the death of the survivor of them, the indenture of settlement provides that the trustees shall hold the said premises in trust for such person or persons or charity or charitie...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Guman Vs. Lakshman Dagdu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR728
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question of law on this second appeal is, whether the transferee of a money decree obtained by a mortgagee against his mortgagor is bound by the restriction imposed upon the mortgagee by Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act-viz., that he shall not be entitled to bring the mortgaged property to sale in execution of the decree otherwise than by instituting a suit under Section 67.2. It does not appear from the judgment of the lower appel lante Court whether the assignment of the money decree by the mortgagee in favour of the present appellant was oral or in writing. But that is immaterial for the determination of the question above stated. If the assignment was oral, under the ruling of this Court in Parvata v. Digambar I L R (1890) 15 Bom. 307, the appellant has no locus standi at all for the execution of the money decree, whether by attaching the mortgaged property and bringing it to sale or otherwise. If, on the other hand, the assignment was in writing, a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gopal Sidheshvar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR735
Curiam, J.1. It appears that the petitioner is being tried before Mr. Artal for the offences described in Section 466 (forgery) and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate has allowed the petitioner's point that sanction is necessary as to the latter but he holds that it is not for the former. We are asked in revision to revise the latter order of the Magistrate. The document which the petitioner is alleged to have forged having been produced in a Court of justice, Clause (c) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, must apply to it. We cannot accept the construction put upon the clause by the Magistrate who thinks that the 'production' of a document in a Court is the same thing as ' giving it in evidence'. They are not. A document produced in a Court means one which is produced for the purpose of being tendered in evidence or for some other purpose. Sanction was, therefore, necessary for the purposes of the complaint of the offence under Section 466. Accordingly we quash th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »