Mumbai Court October 1908 Judgments
In Re: Manjnath Shivnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1053
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are opinion that the sanction which was granted on the 22nd of April 1907 by the Subordinate Judge became operative from the date of the order granting it and the Magistrate before whom the complaint had been filed previously could from that date take cognisance of the offence. This view is not inconsistent with the decision in Queen Empress v. Morton and Moorteza Ali (1884) 1. L.R. 9 Bom. 288. There it has been held that a sanction must be obtained before a Criminal Court can take cognizance of the complaint. To the same effect is the law enunciated in Reg. v. Parashram-Keshav (1870) 7 B.H.C. 61 by Melvill J. in interpreting Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1861. These decisions mean no more than this, that where a complaint having been filed and a sanction subsequently obtained, any action taken by Magistrate before the grant of the sanction, is illegal but that does not prevent the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the complaint after the sancti...
Tag this Judgment!Putlabai Sadashiv Vs. Mahadu Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1134
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has been validly adopted as a son to his deceased maternal grand-father Sadashiv. The question has been answered in the affirmative in the lower Court.2. The material facts are as follow:-The plaintiff is the natural son of Anna and Bhagi. Bhagi is the daughter of Sadashiv. Anna, Bhagi and the plaintiff live with Sadashiv. Bhagi says that her father intended from the first to adopt the plaintiff, that her husband asked him to do so and when attacked with plague told Sadashiv that the boy was given to him. This story is highly probable for Sadashiv was a well to do man possessed of property worth Rs. 25,000 or 30,000 while Anna had no property whatever. At intervals of a few months the deaths occurred of, first Anna, then Sadashiv and lastly Bhowani, Bhagi's mother. Sadashiv had another wife Putli the defendant in this suit. After Sadashiv's death Putli and Bhagi and the plaintiff lived together in Sadashiv's house...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveriamma Putta Hegde Vs. Lingappa Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1190
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover rent from, the first defendant on the ground that he was the lessee of certain property to which the first plaintiff had become entitled as heir of her deceased brothers.2. The property had come into the possession of the first plaintiff's family by a deed of mortgage dated the 14th of December 1895 which was executed with possession in favour of Subraya although the mortgage money was advanced by Subraya on behalf of himself and his younger brother. On the same date, the 14th of December 1895, Subraya in his own name granted a lease of the property for twelve years to the first defendant. Subraya after some years died, his interest as mortgagee surviving to his younger brother Ramkrishna. Ramkrishna thereafter died and the person who became entitled as his heir was the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff however did not live with her brothers and upon the death of Ramkrishna the property was taken possession of an...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveriamma Vs. Lingappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.654
1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover rent from the first defendant on the ground that he was the lessee of certain property to which the first plaintiff had become entitled as heir of her deceased brothers.2. The property had come into the possession of the first plaintiff's family by a deed of mortgage, dated the 14th of December 1895, which was executed with possession in favour of Subraya, although the mortgage money was advanced by Subraya on behalf of himself and his younger brother. On the same date, the 14th of December 1895, Subraya in his own name granted a lease of the property for 12 years to the first defendant. Subraya after some years died, his interest as mortgagee surviving to his younger brother Ramkrishna. Ramkrishna thereafter died and the person who became entitled as his heir was the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff, however, did not live with her brothers and upon the death of Ramkrishna the property was taken possession of and managed by Subr...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. and Co. Vs. Bhagwandas Chaturbhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1113
Knight, J.1. Plaintiffs sue to recover from defendant the price of a number of cases of Turkey red cloth which he contracted to buy from them on September 3rd 1907. The goods were being manufactured to plaintiff's order in England, and consignments of them began to arrive about a month after the execution of the contract. Defendant took delivery of four cases on October 9th, but professed himself dissatisfied with the quality of their contents. Negotiatinos with the vendors resulted in a settlement on November 23rd, when it was agreed that certain deductions should be made from the contract rates; but although this seemed to remove the causes of defendant's discontent, he failed, and eventually refused to take delivery of the remaining castes; and the present suit is the result.2. The first and most important question of fact arises from the defence set up that the contract is void for vagueness. It is a clumsily worded document, and it contains one sentence which might well defy inter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›