Mumbai Court December 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Arjun Ambo Kathodi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR129
1. We must accept the District Magistrate's view in this reference, which is in accordance with the ruling this Court in Queen Empress v. Tulshya Bahiru (1898) Unr. Cr. C. 970, with v. Emperor v. Muthttkomaran ILR (1903) 27 Mad. 525 and Joghi Kannigan v. Emperor ILR (1903) Mad. 525.2. We must, therefore, make the sentences concurrent in the present case. Record and proceeding to be returned with the order....
Maung Tha HuyIn Vs. Maung Mya Su.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR234
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal in a mortgage suit. It was heard ex parte.2. It is the appeal of the plaintiff from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Lower Burma on its appellate side reversing a judgment and decree of the Judge of the District Court of Amherst, which was in the plaintiffs favour, and dismissing his suit with costs.3. Owing to the confused state of the record and the manner in which the case was presented to the Courts below, their Lordships have felt more than the ordinary difficulty, which attends an ex parte hearing, in dealing with the materials placed before them. They find it impossible to pronounce a final judgment without serious risk of doing injustice to one or other of the two parties principally concerned.4. Some of the facts are beyond dispute.5. On the 26th of July, 1890, four persons, who are all dead and are now represented by the first eight respondents, mortgaged four plots of ground, Nos. I, II, III, and IV, in or near Moulmein, to the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›