Mumbai Court July 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.
Datta Ram Kashinath Wagle Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.285
1. In this case the accused, who was a servant of one Dr. Underwood practising as a Medical Practitioner in Bombay', was sentenced by the Magistrate to one (1) day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150 for criminal broach of trust in respect of two sums of Rs. 15 and Rs. 20 alleged to have been mis-appropriated by him as a servant.2. The accused appealed to this Court but in view of the provisions of Section 411 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the decision recorded in Queen-Empress v. Hari Savba 20 B. 145 we held that we were unable to entertain the appeal.3. It was represented to us, however, that there was a point of law arising upon the findings of the Magistrate. We, therefore, allowed the case to be argued as if it had been admitted in revision.4. The pleader for the accused contends that on the findings of the Magistrate no dishonest intention is proved.5. The material facts found by the Magistrate are that the accused was the general agent acting under a Power-of-Attorn...
Balla Sakharam Koregaonkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.778
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an application made under our revisional jurisdiction for the reversal of the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, convicting the petitioner of the offence, under Section 43 (g) of the Bombay Abkari Act (V of 1878), of selling liquor without a permit from the Collector of Abkari and sentencing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or, in default, to suffer three weeks' rigorous imprisonment. The defence of the petitioner at the trial was that he had sold the liquor under a permit granted to him by the Collector as a servant of Tukaram Mahadu Warekar, who held a license under the Act. The learned Magistrate has found upon the evidence that the petitioner is not the person to whom the permit was given by the Collector.2. It is contended before us in support of the application that the conviction is illegal because the petitioner sold the liquor merely as a servant of the licensee and that to such a sale Clause (g) of Section 43 of the Abkari A...
Emperor Vs. Nagji Ghelabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.962a
1. On the 31st of October 1908 the Second Class Magistrate of Pardi granted sanction to two accused persons in a theft case to prosecute the complainants for the offences mentioned in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No action was taken upon that sanction, but in the December following a complaint was lodged in the Court of the nearest Magistrate, First Class, by the Karkun of the Second Class Magistrate of Pardi who stated to the Court that he knew the accused who were the complainants in the theft case and that he had lodged the complaint by order of the Second Class Magistrate, that it was a verbal order, that he was given the sanction order and the papers in the case of the complaint of the accused Nagji Ghelabhai and that he produced the Second Class Magistrate's sanction. Thereupon the accused was arrested and put on his trial.2. An application has now been made to us to quash the proceedings on the ground that they have been instituted under an illegal sanction. The a...
Vishvanath Dnyanoba Vs. Lallu Kabla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.137
Chandavarkar J.1. In this case there was a decree passed in favour of the father of the present respondents on the 29th of June 1907, though he had died on the 28th April 1907, and his sons, the present respondents, had not been brought on the record as his heirs and legal representatives. The appellant, however, presented an appeal against the decree but withdrew it. They then applied for execution of the decree.2. The appellant resisted the application on the ground that the decree, having been passed in favour of the plaintiff who was deceased at its date, was a nullity and, therefore, incapable of execution.3. Both the Courts below have allowed execution but, I think, wrongly. A Court has no jurisdiction to make a decree Whether against or in favour of a deceased person.4. It is urged, however, by Mr. Dandekar, the learned pleader for the respondents, that this rule of law is subject to an exception stated at page 97 of Broom's Legal Maxims,' 11th Edition, where under the legal max...
In Re: Haji Jan Mahomed Haji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.126
Davar, J.1. Haji Jan Mahomed Haji was previous to the 30th day of April 1909 carrying on business as a merchant in Bombay. Haji Ahmed Haji Sulleman, who alleges that he is a creditor of Haji Jan Mahomed, on the 30th of April last, presented a petition to the Officiating Chief Justice, who was then one of the vacation Judges, and obtained an order whereby the said Haji Jan Mahomed was adjudicated an insolvent. A vesting order was made, and he was ordered to file his Schedule within thirty days thereafter. The adjudicated insolvent is stated to have left Bombay and the petitioning creditor has not been able to serve the order of adjudication on him. The Official Assignee acting under the vesting order has taken possession of a piece-goods shop belonging to Haji Jan Mahomed. The shop contains goods of large value.2. On the 18th of June 1909 Mr. Robertson, on behalf of his client Haji Jackeira Haji Ahmed Patel, applied to me for a rule calling upon the petitioning creditor to show cause wh...
N. Joachimson and Co. Vs. Meghji Valji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.801
Chandavarkar, J.1. The first question argued on this appeal is whether the relationship constituted between the appellants (plaintiffs) and the respondent (defendant) by the two contracts on which the suit was brought was one of agent and principle or of purchaser and vendor. Both the contracts are in writing and judging from their terms alone the conlcusion is, I think, inevitable that the appellants accepted tinder them the business of agency to sell the goods for and on behalf of the respondent.2. Each contract begins whith these words ;-'We,' (ie., respondents), 'here with confirm the sale through you' (i.e. appellants), words which are apt to convey the meaning that the latter were appointed to sell for the former. There is an admission, however, by the respondent in his deposition that 'sale through you' and 'sale to you' mean the same thing; and in his solicitors' letter to the appellants, Exh. A 14, the goods forming the subject-matter of another contract are referred to as hav...
Vasanji Tricumji and Co. Vs. Ismailbhai Shivji and ors. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.130
Macleod, J.1. This suit has been filed by Vassonji Tricumji and Co., a firm, on behalf of themselves and other creditors of the estate of the deceased Ebrahimbhai Hassambhai against the executors, the widow and the daughter of the deceased, for the administration of his estate. The applicant, one of the creditors of the deceased, desires to be added as a party. There is no doubt that under O. I, Rule 8, Sub-rule 2, he is entitled to apply and the Court has a discretion, if it thinks fit, to add him as a party. The principles on which one of a body on whose behalf a suit has already been filed can claim with some show of justice to be added as a party are well defined. He must show that his interests will be seriously affected to his prejudice if he is not allowed to come in. He must show that the conduct of (he suit is not in proper hands or that action being taken by the parties, who purport to represent him, in some way which is prejudicial to his interests. In an administration suit...
Harihar Kant Bhatta Vs. Rama Pandu Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.253
Chandavarkar, J.1. Two points of law have been urged in support of this second appeal. The facts stated shortly are these: The property had been sold by the Court on the 17th January 1908 in execution of a decree against the respondent. On the 8th of February 1908 he applied to the Court to set aside the sale. That application was made upon the ground that the people of the village where he resided and where the property was situate, had so conspired as to bring about the sale for under-value. The application (Exhibit 16) was rejected. On the 15th February 1908 the respondent applied to the Court under Section 310- A and deposited the amount as required by that section. The appellant objected upon the ground that the application could not be entertained, because the judgment-debtor (respondent) having made an application under Section 311 was debarred by the provisions of Section 310-A from claiming any relief under the latter section.2. The Subordinate Judge allowed the objection and ...
Mahantava Irappa Vs. Gangava Mallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.962a
1. The question which has been argued before us on behalf of the appellant is whether a marriage between a man of the Panchal caste and a woman of the Kurbar caste is valid. The Panchal and the Kurbars are Sub-divisions of the Shudra tribe.2. It has been held by the Judicial Committee in Inderun Valugypooly Taver v. Ramasawmy Sandia Taver 13 M.I.A. 141 : 3 B.L.R. (P.C.) 1 : 12 W.R. (P.C.) 41 that when the factum of a marriage is proved the presumption is that it is valid in law and in that case there was nothing illegal in the intermarriage of members of different sub-divisions of a Shudra tribe. The onus would, therefore, appear to lie upon the party alleging an illegality by reason of immemorial custom to prove such prohibting custom. That was the view taken by this Court in the case of Fakirgauda v. Gangi 22 B. 727.3. The learned District Judge in the case now before us has correctly applied the law as to onus. He says the evidence in this -case certainly does not establish any proh...
Bai Rewa Alias Next Friend of Minor Vs. Jethabai Vithal and a Minor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.133a
Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned District Judge in dealing with this case has held that Exhibit--110, is not agreement of compromise between the plaintiffs and the defendants but that it must be treated as an award. The reason which he gives is that an agreement must be bilateral, which he says this is not. But it is conceded before us, and indeed the learned District Judge has found, that there was a dispute between the parties as regards the estate of the deceased Maneklal, each claiming to be Maneklal's heir to the property. Further the plaintiff claimed under a will or testamentary disposition of the deceased. That dispute was settled by the parties in terms which are embodied in Exhibit--110. Although Exhibit--110, is not signed by the plaintiff and there is no formal acceptance of it, the fact stands that for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, they came to an amicable settlement (Exhibit--110), and the document was made over to defendant No. 1. The learned Distric...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »