Mumbai Court January 1910 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.
Joshi Narbadashankar Hurjivan Vs. Mathuradas Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1058
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Two points have been urged by the appellant in this appeal: (1) that according to the rules of the Bombay Rice Merchants Association subject to which the contracts sued on were made both parties were to pay or receive differences and, that therefore the contracts were void as wagers; (2) that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it should have been found as a fact that neither party intended that delivery should be taken.2. In support of the first point reliance is placed upon Rule 17 of the Rice Association Rules. That rule obliges the buyer to accept a delivery order if tendered up to 4 p. M. on the sixth day before the Vaida and provides that on the seller's failure to make such delivery, the contract shall be settled by payment of the difference between the contract rate and the due date rate fixed by the Association.3. Whether if the seller failed to give the delivery order in time the conditions imposed by the rules would make the contract a...
Husensha Rahimansha Vs. Mashaksha Mujafaesha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR232
1. Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code invests a Magistrate acting under it with the power to make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of the property or its delivery to the person entitled to its possession. There is no order respecting the disposal here, because the word ' disposal ' is something different from ' delivery.' Here what the Magistrate did was that he ordered the property, which was in possession of the Police, to be made over to the complainant. Section 523 says that a Magistrate may order its delivery, if bethinks fit, to the person entitled thereto. The Magistrate does not decide the question of title but merely decides the question of possession. The fact that the accused had been in possession of the property when the charge was made is not conclusive. The question is who is entitled to its possession. As was said in In re Ahmed Saheb (1888) U Cri. C. 365, in such a case the Magistrate is bound to institute an inquiry under this section before...
Ramakrishna Narayan Sindhe Vs. Vinayak Nabayan Saswadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR219
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. It is true that Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act requires that all persons, having an interest in property comprised in a mortgage, must be joined as parties to any suit under Chapter IV of the Act, relating to such mortgage, provided that the plaintiff has notice of the interest. But the section has been construed by the Calcutta and the Madras High Court as not interfering with the rule of Hindu law, that it is open to a father in a Hindu family to represent, subject to certain conditions, his sons or other members in a suit brought upon a mortgage against him. For instance, in Ramasamayyan v. Virasami Ayyar ILR (1898) Mad. 222, the mortgage had been executed by a Hindu father. The suit was brought against him and two of his three sons and there was a decree A suit having been brought by the third son, it was contended by him that as he had not been made a party to the previous suit upon the mortgage, the decree passed in it, and the sale consequent ...
Sakharam Hari Vs. Laxmipriya Tirtha Swami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR157
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. In the suit out of which this second appeal arises, the respondent before us, as plaintiff, sought, as manager of the temple of Shri Laxmi Narayan Dev at Hulekal, to recover the arrears for six years of a cash allowance (tastik) due to the temple from year to year from the temple of Shree Madhukeshvar at Banavasi, of which the present appellants are managers.2. The appellants admitted the title of the respondent to the allowance but pleaded limitation as to the arrears for two out of the six years.3. The Subordinate Judge, who heard the suit, held that the period of twelve years under Article 131 of the Limitation Act applied to the claim for arrears and allowed the whole of the claim. The Subordinate Judge, First Class, who heard the appeal from the original decree, has confirmed it.4. On this second appeal it is argued, on the authority of Chamanlal v. Bapubhai ILR (1897) 22 Bom. 669, Raoji v. Bala ILR (1899) Mad. 351, and Rathna Mudaliar v. Tiruvenkata C...
In Re: Rachappa Tippanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR229
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. There are decisions of the different High Courts which lay down that no sanction ought to be granted for the prosecution of a person under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, unless he has had an opportunity of adducing all his evidence in the matter of the complaint preferred by him. Now, those decisions proceed upon the ground that it is manifestly unjust that any Magistrate ought to grant such sanction on the mere strength of a Police report, without having applied his own judicial mind to the question whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not. In some of the decisions on the question, it is said, that where a Magistrate grants such sanction, without taking all the evidence which the complainant is willing to adduce, the Magistrate acts without jurisdiction. But, without going so far, I am of opinion that, before granting any sanction under Section 211, the Magistrate ought to observe all the formalities prescribed in Sections 201-203 of...
Emperor Vs. Mulji Damodardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR122
1. The respondent was charged before the Presidency magistrate, with having committed an offence under Section 390 (i) of the Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. He was acquitted by the Magistrate, and the Government of Bombay appeals against that acquittal. Section 390 (i) lays down that-No person shall newly establish in any premises any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is intended that steam, water or other mechanical power shall be employed, without the previous written permission of the Commissioner.2. The accused obtained the Municipal Commissioner's permission to establish a hand-loom factory, worked by an oil engine. But by means of this oil engine the accused has also established a Hour mill. It seems to us quite clear that he is guilty of a technical offence under Section 390. The mechanical power or force is to be distinguished from the factory. And here, although the respondent had leave to establish the hand-loom factory, he had no leave to establish the flour mill...
Emperor Vs. Balvantrao Anantrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR124
1. We think that we ought not to interfere with this acquittal, and that the Magistrate was right in declining to convict the accused under Section 43 (b) of the Bombay Abkari Act V of 1878. The fact was that the accused's possession of this cocaine was altogether illegal, and, in these circumstances, it seems to us that Section 43 (6) does not apply. That section seems to contemplate rather the case of a person who is in lawful possession of cocaine at one place, but is by law forbidden to remove it either partly or wholly to another place. Here the offence consisted not in moving the cocaine from one place to another, but in the unauthorised possession of it at any place in contravention of the Act. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed....
Emperor Vs. Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR126
Batchelor, J.1. The respondent here was served with a notice or requisition under Section 377 of the Bombay Municipal Act, III of 1888, requiring him to remove filth, rubbish, heaps of cutchera and stable refuse from a large piece of vacant land belonging to him. The requisition was not complied with and a prosecution was instituted in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, on the 25th of May, adjourned the case so that he himself might view the premises in question, and having so viewed them, but without hearing any evidence, acquitted the respondent, recording his reason for that acquittal in these words : ' The heap was seen by me and it is not cutchera but only earth.' On this appeal, it is represented to us by the Advocate-General, on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner, that though the accumulation of the rubbish in question had outwardly the appearance of an undulating mound of earth of varying height extending for about thirty yards along the western s...
Basangouda Hanmantgouda Vs. Churchigikigouda Yogangouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR223
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. It is contended that the lower Court has erred in law in upsetting the decree, which was passed in terms of what purported to be a compromise between the parties. The compromise ended in a decree, because it was represented to the Court that the present opponent (defendant) Bhimangouda, who was represented by his pleader, had authorized the latter to enter into the compromise. Bhimangouda, after the decree had been passed, applied to the Court to set aside the compromise on the ground that the pleader had not been instructed to appear for him in the suit and that he had given him no instructions in the case, authorizing him to enter into any compromise. If that was so, the compromise was not binding upon Bhimangouda, and the decree passed upon it was void as to him. It was ultra vires. The Court had been asked to put its seal upon and sign a document, which had no legal foundation to rest upon, and if that decree goes out, then the whole suit is re-opened. But i...
Nandlal Thakersey Vs. the Bank of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR316
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Lakhmidas Naranji from 1900 till August 1903 carried on business in Bombay as a cotton merchant and Mucca-dam-a Muccadam in the cotton trade being a carting agent and ware-houseman. He was in the habit, throughout that period, of financing his business by means of loans and cash credits given to him by the Bank of Bombay upon the security of fully pressed bales of cotton stored on Jettas (fair weather storage plots) or in godowns (covered warehouses) at Colaba.2. The Jettas available to him for the storage of cotton in the beginning of 1903 were three contiguous plots hired from the Port Trustees and situate at the cotton storage ground at Colaba. The three plots were numbered 51, 52 and 53. Plot 53, which3. Was only a half plot, was hired by Lakhmidas in-the name of the Bank, while 51 and 52 appear to have been hired in his own name. It is found as a fact by the learned Judge of the original Court, a finding which I accept as correct, that Jettas 52 and 53 wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »