Mumbai Court January 1912 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Chhotalal Babar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR147
Batchelor, J.1. The point of law referred to us arises in the following state of facts. The accused, Chhotalal Baber, is a subject of the Cambay State. He lived in Cambay and there traded with his business partner, Ambalal Jethalal. In May 1910 the accused, conspiring with Ambalal, sent Ambalal to a certain professional forger, by name Somnath Ranchhod, living in Umreth, with instructions to instigate Somnath to forge a valuable security, namely a hhata: To facilitate the forgery, the accused sent his khata-hook with Ambalal to Somnath. Somnatb committed the forgery in pursuance of Ambalal's instigation. The accused was charged on these facts before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad with the offence of abetment of forgery under Sections 467 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and the learned Judge, Mr. C. N. Mehta, has referred to us the question whether upon these facts the accused, not being a British subject, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Court. After a careful ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Laxman Sarpotdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR158
Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioner asks this Court to hold as ultra vires the proclamation of the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri, prohibiting the dissemination in the said District of pictures or symbols of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The main ground of objection to the legal validity of the proclamation is that in terms it prohibits the circulation of the book in question throughout the District of Ratnagiri and -not in any particular town or village, or neighbourhood thereof. It is urged that s 42 of the Bombay District Police Act (No. IV of 1890) gives no' power to the District Magistrate to issue a proclamation so as to make it apply to the District in general.2. The section is not clearly worded but I think that the preliminary conditions essential under its provisions for the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by it are these : first, the jurisdiction is conferred on the Magistrate of the District or in his absence and subject to his own order the Magistrate of the First Class; sec...
Tag this Judgment!Rangubai Vs. Subaji Ramchandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR267
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for maintenance which she claims from the family of her husband. She states in her plaint that she had been living with her parents since her husband's death nine years ago.2. The learned District judgement the facts that the plaintiff has chosen to live apart from her husband's relations and has adduced no reason to justify herself in so doing. He says :' In 1896 she filed a suit in forma pauperis to recover maintenance and certain exhibits show that negotiations were ] also being carried on at that time. But there is nothing on the record except the plaintiff's brother's uncorroborated statement to show that maintenance was demanded and refused before 1906.' He, therefore, decides that maintenance should only be awarded from the 1st of January 1906. 3. Now it may be that the claim for maintenance should not be decided according to proof of demand and refusal; we do not propose to decide it upon that ground. But, we think, upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Ibrahim Ali Khan Vs. Nawab Muhammad Ahsan Ullah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR270
Ameer Ali, J.1. The sole question for determination involved in these two appeals relates to the rule of succession applicable to the Kunjpura State lying in what are called the Cis-Sutlej Districts of the Punjab.2. The Kunjpura riasat lies about 100 miles to the north of Delhi, in the District of Karnal, and was founded in the first half of the 18th century by an Afghan soldier of fortune of the name of Najabat Khan, who, like many other adventurers, native and foreign, had taken advantage of the troublous times when the whole fabric of the Mogul Empire had fallen to pieces to carve out a small principality for himself. In 1748 he obtained a sanad from the Afghan conqueror Ahmed Shah Abdali, also called Durani, then in the height of his power in Northern India, granting him a ' hereditary jagir ' of the villages, 149 in number, of which he was in possession at the time. The villages were declared to be inam, or revenue-free, and he was to enjoy thenceforth the revenue payable to the I...
Tag this Judgment!Rangubai Vs. Subaji Ramachandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.821
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for maintenance which she claims from the family of her husband. She states in her plaint that she had been living with her parents since her husband's death nine years ago.2. The learned District Judge finds on the facts that the plaintiff has chosen to live apart from her husband's relations and has adduced no reason to justify herself in so doing. He says: 'In 1896, she filed a suit in forma pauperis to recover maintenance and certain exhibits show that negotiations were also being carried on at that time. Bat there is nothing on the record, except the plaintiff's brother's uncorroborated statement, to show that maintenance was demanded and refused before 1908.' He, therefore, decides that maintenance should only be awarded from the 1st of January 1906.3. Now, it may be that the claim for maintenance should not be decided according to proof of demand and refusal; we do not propose to decide it upon that ground. But, we think, upon the findings of f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Moses Amado Taylor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR471
Robson, J.1. The appellant Moses Amado Taylor is a native of Freetown, in the Colony of Sierra Leone, and a barrister of the Honorable Society of Gray's Inn, where he was called to the Bar in June 1907. He was afterwards enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the sale Colony, and he now appeals from three Orders of that Court.2. By the first of those Orders, dated the 3rd September 1908 he was fined 100/. and costs for an alleged contempt of Court: by the second, dated the 7th May 1909, he was fined 20/. in respect of an alleged forgery in the case of Rex v. Ganson and by the third, dated the 10th May 1909, his name was removed from the Roll of barristers and solicitors of the said Supreme Court.3. On the 6th May 1908 the appellant, acting professionally for one Michael Huggins, commenced an action in the Circuit Court of the Protectorate wherein the plaintiff Huggins, which was a native railway pointsman in service of the Sierra Leont Government, sued one George...
Tag this Judgment!Mi Me Vs. Mi Shwe Ma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR204
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Upper Burma reversing a decree of the District Court of Magwe.2. The question on which the Courts differed relates to the status of the plaintiff Mi Shwe Ma. She claims to have been lawfully married to one Maung Aung Myat, deceased, and as his widow to be entitled to share equally in his estate with her elder sister Mi Me, who had been married to him for many years before his connection with the younger sister.3. In Burma polygamy is undoubtedly lawful, and it is not unlawful to marry the sister of a living wife, though such a marriage is not considered quite respectable, while marriage with a deceased wife's sister is looked upon as proper and even laudable.4. The law Delating to marriage in Burma is extremely lax. No ceremony of any kind is essential. Mutual consent is 'all that is inquired. In the absence of direct proof consent may be inferred from the conduct of the parties or established by refutat...
Tag this Judgment!Vithoba Kondiba Kotwal Vs. Tejiram Bhavaniram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR264
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question which has been argued is whether a judgment-debtor against whom an application for execution is made in July 1910 in respect of a decree passed in September 1898, can be allowed at this stage to object that the second of a series of Darkhasts which commenced in September 1900 was out of time.2. The lower Courts have both held that the matter is res judicata and that it is not open to the defendant now to raise the point.3. The second Darkhast in regard to which the question arises was taken out on the 28th of September 1903, 25 days more than three years after the prior Darkhast. It has been held that notice under Section 248 was waived by the judgment-debtor, but he is not shown to have appeared on the Darkhast and an order for attachment was issued. That order, however, was acted upon, because, the judgment-creditor failed to point out the property to be attached, and the Darkhast was accordingly struck off.4. It is no doubt true that decisions i...
Tag this Judgment!Nathubhai Dhirajram Vs. Bai Hansgavri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR418
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit was brought by the present appellant for a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with his right of way over a certain passage.2. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit looked at the question of the plaintiff's right in two aspects, first, as a right by way of implied reservation, secondly, as a right by way either of easement or prescription. On both these points he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established his right to the passage in question. Accordingly a decree as prayed for was made.3. But in appeal the learned District Judge has held that the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove that he has used as of right the passage in dispute for the statutory period required for an easement or prescriptive right.4. It is contended in support of this second appeal that the learned District Judge has not applied himself to the question of implied reservation to which the learned Subordinate Judge had very carefull...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Imankhan Rasulkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR141
1. We must reverse the convictions and sentences in both these cases on the preliminary ground raised before us by Mr. Shah in support of the appeal that the Court below could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, because there was no complaint as required by the provisions of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What happened was that the original complaint was made to the Police. The Police sent up the complaint to the Magistrate charging the accused with offences under Sections 366 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate commenced his inquiry on these charges. There was no charge formulated against the accused under Section 498 at the beginning of the inquiry. The first witness examined was the complainant. It may be that certain statements made in the deposition amounted to an offence under Section 498, but that was the statement .of the complainant made as a witness. It could not be said to be a complaint within the meaning of Clause...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »