Mumbai Court October 1912 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. Chandabhai Amarsang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1160; 17Ind.Cas.1000
Batchelor, J.1. The only point, which we need notice, taken on behalf of the applicant, was that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to inquire into the offence, and the reason why it is argued that he had no such jurisdiction that he had already given to the police what is called a B summary in regard to the accusation by the accused man. But the learned Magistrate, it seems to us, is perfectly right in saying that a B summary is not an order passed under the Code at all, but is a mere administrative order made by the Magistrate for the purpose of facilitating police work and police statistics. It is in our view quite clear that the giving of this B summary is by no means tantamount to the grant of a Magisterial sanction for the prosecution of the original complainant.2. Then it was said that if such an order does not amount to a sanction, there was not in this case any sanction at all for the prosecution of the accused. That no doubt is so, but the prosecution is, notwithstand...
Bai Fatma Vs. Ali Mahomed Aiyab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1178; 17Ind.Cas.946
Batchelor, J.1. We have before us in this appeal an agreement made between a Mahoraedan husband and his wife, providing for a certain maintenance to be given to the wife in the event of a future separation between them. There can be no doubt that that is the effect of the agreement, and that it contemplates not a present but a prospective separation. In fact the separation did not take place until the lapse of some weeks after the execution of the agreement.2. The question is whether that agreement is good in law or is void as being opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. This question, arising also between Mahomedans, was considered by me in Meherally v. Sakerkhanoobai (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 602 where to the best of my ability I have explained the reasons which led me to hold that such an agreement, which would admittedly be bad in English law, is bad also as between Mahomedan spouses. My learned brother informs me that he is in agreement with the decision in Mehera...
Vinayak Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. Sitaram Janardan Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1173; 17Ind.Cas.943
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this appeal, now that the issues on remand have been decided, is whether the Khot can recover from the occupancy-tenant on the basis of a judicial estimate of the amount of rent payable. This depends upon whether the Court is precluded from arriving at what it considers the reasonable amount of rent by the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules framed under Section 40(a) of the Khoti Settlement Act.2. Now the only rent which, according to Statute the occupancy tenant can be liable to pay, is the rent as prescribed by Section 33(c) which for the purpose of this suit may be taken to be a crop-share, that is to say, a fixed proportion of the gross annual produce of the land and of the produce of fruit-trees, if any. How then is the gross annual produce of the land to be ascertained That is provided for by Section 40, which says that ' the Governor in Council, may by notification...from time to time, frame...rules not inconsistent with the...Act...f...
Hira Vs. Hansji Pema
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1182; 17Ind.Cas.949
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us was the original plaintiff who sued for a declaration of her right as the heir of her step-sister Ratan. The parties are Kolis by caste. Ratan was the daughter of one Hiria by Hiria's wife Ramli. The plaintiff is the daughter of Hiria by another wife. It appears that Ratan had been three times married before suit, and had been divorced from her former husbands. The second defendant was her fourth husband to whom she was married in 1907. Shortly after that Hiria died and about a week later Ramli died. Their property went in part to Ratan and in part to the present plaintiff. On the 33rd October 1908, Bai Ratan died. The first defendant took possession of her property claiming as heir and also under a will. The second defendant also claimed as heir and under another will.2. In the trial Court the decision went in favour of the plaintiff, who was held to be the preferential heir to Ratan's stridhan property, the Court holding that Ratan's marriage w...
Bai Fatma Wife of Alimahomed Aiyeb Vs. Alimahomed Aiyeb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom280
Batchelor, J.1. We have before us in this appeal an agreement made between a Mahomedan husband and his wife, providing for a certain maintenance to be given to the wife in the event of a future separation between them. There can be no doubt that that is the effect of the agreement, and that it contemplates not a present but a prospective separation. In fact the separation did not take place until the lapse of some weeks after the execution of the agreement.2. The question is whether that agreement is good in law or is void as being opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. This question, arising also between Mahomedans, was considered by me in Meherally v. Sakerkhanoobai (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 602 where to the best of my ability I have explained the reasons which led me to hold that such an agreement, which would admittedly be bad in English law, is bad also as between Mahomedan spouses. My learned brother informs me that he is in agreement with the decision in Meheral...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›