Mumbai Court January 1908 Judgments
Nathubhai Motilal Vs. Bai Ujjam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR274
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Court of Broach on the 26th March 1907.2. The acting District Judge described the appeal before him as being from the lower Court's order directing execution to proceed. The order he intended to describe was one of the 22nd October 1906, and that was an order for attachment of property.3. The learned Judge reversed this order for attachment and rejected this darkhast. The ground of his decision wasthat he thought Sections 99 and100 and Section 67 of the Transfer.of Property Act made it necessary that a suit should be brought under Section 67.It may be a question as to whether or not one of the properties can be regarded as property in relation to which the applicant is a mortgagee within the meaning of Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act. But with that we have no concern at this stage. Even if he be a mortgagee, he still is entitled to attach the property. Section 99 contemplates an attachment by him...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chandra Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR173
Curiam, J.1. We cannot accept the reference as it stands because, as has been pointed out by Mr. Branson, the learned, counsel for accused No. 8, the learned Sessions Judge has not complied with the requirements of Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This has fairly been admitted by the learned Advocate General who appears before us for the complainant. In the first place the learned Sessions Judge does not say in this reference in clear and unambiguous terms what is the offence which has, in his opinion, been committed by the accused, and on what grounds in that respect, he differs from the Jury. We think that, when a reference of this kind is made by a Sessions Judge, he should state with some fulness his view of the evidence and the credibility of the more important witnesses, because, not being in a position to pronounce any opinion upon the demeanour of the witnesses this Court has to attach more or less weight to the opinion of the Judge who of and heard the witnesses. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Shriniwas Krishna Shiralkar Vs. Narhar Khando Khanvilkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR374
Chandavarkar, J.1. We think that in this case the appeal must be allowed. The question is whether the first and the second instalments are saved by the words relied upon as acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1877. There can be no doubt as to the first instalment. The acknowledgment relied upon is contained in the application put in by the judgment debtor by way of a written statement in the Darkhast No. 717 of 1903, presented on the 27th of July 1903. In that application which was filed on the 28th September 1903, the judgment debtor said that he was unable to pay that instalment but that he would pay if time were given to him. That was a distinct acknowledgment of his liability and as the present darkhast was presented on the 24th September 1906 the said instalment is within time. The question is then as regards the second instalment. What is relied upon as acknowledgment as to that is contained in the second paragraph of the same application and runs in these wo...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Vithoba Vs. Warubai Baburao Mudke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR389
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question of Hindu law in this appeal is. what is the exact place of the uterine sister of a deceased Hindu in the line of heirs, according to the Mitakshara, and whether in those parts of this Presidency, where that authority prevails over the Vyavahara Mayukha, the sister must be preferred to a half brother's son as heir of the propositus.2. The District Judge of Sholapur, whence this case comes, has held on the latter part of the question in favour of the sister, on the authority of Rudrap v. Irava ILR (1903) 28 Bom. 82. But that ruling is not decisive of the question which arises here. The competition there was between a sister and a brother's widow, whereas in the present case it is between the former and a half brother's son. That decision has no bearing, for the purposes of the present case, beyond repeating what had been already settled before, by a long series of decisions of this Court, that the sister of a deceased Hindu in this Presidency is in the lin...
Tag this Judgment!Ayshabai Vs. Ebrahim Haji Jacob
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR117
Davar, J.1. The plaintiff seeks in this suit a declaration that she is absolutely entitled to the property both moveable and immoveable left by her grand-father Haji Cassum Sulleman, a Cutchi Memon merchant of Bombay, who died on the 21st of October 1894, and prays that the defendants may be ordered to deliver up possession of the said property to her. She further prays that the defendants may be ordered to account for all the property of Haji Cassum come into their hands and for the rents and income thereof.2. Previous to his death the said Haji Cassum on the 31st of July 1894; made a will whereby he purported to make certain dispositions of his property. He left a widow Fatmabai who died in 1897-a son Haroon who died in October 1896-a grandson Aboo Bakar who died in December 1895. Haroon's widow Hamabai died in August 1899. The plaintiff is a daughter of the testator's son Haroon. She contends that in the events that have happened she is now absolutely and solely entitled to the whol...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chinto Bhairava
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR93
Curiam, J.1. Mr. Khare, the learned pleader for the opponent, in showing cause why the sentence should not be enhanced, asks us to allow him to discuss the evidence and satisfy us that his client has been wrongly convicted. But we cannot allow that as it has been the invariable practice of this Court in such cases to accept the conviction as conclusive and to consider the question of enhancement of sentence on that basis. That practice has been consistently adhered to by this Court for over 25 years now, and ought, we think, to be followed. It was open to the opponent to apply for revision of the conviction but having failed to avail himself of that, he cannot be permitted to assail the conviction in a proceeding where the sole question is whether the sentence passed by the lower Court is adequate or not. We enhance the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for two months in addition to the sentence of fine passed by the Magistrate which is to remain....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gopal Siddeshwar Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR95
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an application for revision by this Court of the order of the District Judge of Belgaum granting sanction to the Public Prosecutor under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 463, 466 and 471, Indian Penal Code, or such other sections as may be applicable.2. The sanction was accorded by the District Judge under the following circumstances. An application was made by the Public Prosecutor to the Subordinate Judge ofGotak in the first instance for, sanction, because the offence, in respect of which it was applied for, was alleged to have been committed in the course of a suit in his Court. On the day and at the hour fixed for the hearing of that application the Public Prosecutor having failed to appear, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application as for default. The Public Prosecutor appeared shortly after the dismissal and explained the circumstances under which he had been p...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Belgaum Vs. Bhimrao V. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR657
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge treated the case as though a reference had been made to him in regard to Survey-No. 1360 as well as Survey No. 1361. That was an error, and this is admitted by all. The reference was only made in respect of Survey No. 1361; and so far as the determination of the Judge relates to No. 1360, it clearly must be varied.2. Now we proceed to deal with his decision in regard to Survey No. 1361. The learned Judge has found that the market-value of the land is Rs. 7,372-8-0, that the value of the house, well and enclosure on the land is Rs. 2,100; the sum of Rs. 2,100, held by him to be the value of the house, well and enclosure, is accepted by all parties concerned as correct, so that the, only question is as to the propriety of his award of Rs. 7,372-8-0,3. Now the learned Judge has arrived at that figure on the evidence before him. The Government adduced no evidence in the case, a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Indian Companies Act and Shah Steam Navigation Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR107
Davar, J.1. On the 19th of November, 1907, the petitioner Haji Ahmed Hassan who holds shares of the nominal value of Rs. 75,000 in the Shah Steam Navigation Company presented a petition in Chambers praying that the Company 'may be wound up under the provisions of the Companies' Act, VI of 1882, and that for such purpose all necessary and proper directions may be given.' At the hearing of the petition before me on Saturday the 21st of December 1907, Mr. Strangman representing share- holders who held 385 shares appeared in support of the petitioner. Essaji Tajbhoy who holds 851 shares and his son Gulam Hussein who holds 51 shares, were represented before me by their solicitor, Mr. Dinsha, who also supported the prayer of the petition.2. Mr. Jardine appeared for the Company and opposed the petition. He was supported by Mr. Padshah who represented shareholders who held 1915 shares. Messrs. Adamji Pirbhoy and Sons, the Agents of the Company, also opposed the petition and were represented by...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ganeshdas Panalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR77
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The only question that arises on this appeal is whether the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors sitting in Bombay has jurisdiction to make an order under Section 26 of the Indian Insolvent Act against a person residing at Amritsar. The merits of the case have not beendiscussed before us.2. The Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament, which was competent to give the jurisdiction claimed; the words of the section are sufficiently wide for that purpose; and it is clear that under Section 7 the Court sitting here is authorised to make an order that would affect estate and effects situate outside the Presidency of Bombay. I can, therefore, find no sufficient reason on the face of the Act for withholding from Section 26 its literal and natural effect.3. But then it is argued that the Amended Letters Patent have affected the jurisdiction of the Court.4. By Section 2 of the Indian Insolvent Act it is provided that the Courts established as therein mentioned sha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »