Mumbai Court November 1912 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Chennappa Basappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR101; 19Ind.Cas.167
1. We agree with the learned District Magistrate that the Math in which the card-playing in this case was carried on cannot be regarded as a public place within the meaning of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act IV of 1887. We must, therefore, set aside the convictions of the accused and direct their acquittal and discharge. The fines, if paid by them, should be refunded to them....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kuberappa Dharmappa Chiwati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR288; 19Ind.Cas.321
Batchelor, J.1. In this case two men Kuberappa bin Dharmappa, accused No. 2 and Krishna bin Yellappa, accused No. 2, were charged before the Court of Session at Dhanvar with murder by causing the death of one Parsappa. They were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge with whom the two assessors agreed, and from that order of acquittal this appeal is now brought by the Government of Bombay.2. It may be convenient to set out in limine certain admitted facts in this case, and those admitted facts are these : The deceased Parsappa, a man of advanced years, was related to the first accused who expected to inherit property from him. The two accused are close friends. Next door to the first accused lived his mistress, a woman named Tara. Next door to Tara lived the deceased man Parsappa. Both the accused were in embarrassed circumstances. On the night of the nth March Parsappa was by some person or persons strangled to death under circumstances which constituted his killing the offence of mu...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Raghubir Singh and Kunwar Sati Singh Vs. Musammat Moti Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR426
Macnaghten, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Allahabad pronounced in favour of the respondent Musammat Moti Kunwar.2. In the Court of the Assistant Collector of Etawah, Moti Kunwar, widow of Baldeo Singh, who died in 1895, succeeded in making good her claim to arrears in respect of a specific share of property which undoubtedly at one time formed part of the joint property of an undivided Hindu family to which her husband belonged. Thereupon the appellants, who alleged that Baldeo Singh was not separated at the time of his death, brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri and obtained a declaration that they were the absoi the owners of the property claimed by Moti Kunwar and that she had no right of ownership therein but merely a right to maintenance. There was an appeal to the High Court by Moti Kunwar against the decree of the Subordinate Judge and an appeal by the present appellants against the order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Hassan Bakhsh Vs. Ilahi Bakhsh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR436
Macnaghten, J.1. In the immediate neighbourhood of the city of Multan there is a large tract of unculturable or uncultivated land generally known as the Mai Pak Daman or the Pak Daman graveyard. From time immemorial it has been used by the Mahommadan community in Multan for the purpose of burying their dead. But there is no evidence to show when or how it was originally set apart for the purpose of a burial ground.2. In the judgment of the Chief Court in this case there occurs the following passage giving, as their Lordships think, a very probable account of the origin and early history of this graveyard :-Bahawal Hakh, the famous saint, was born in the 12th century of the Christian Era. He had a son, Sadr-ud-din, whose wife was called Mai Pak Daman. She was revered as a saint, and her body was buried in a shrine within the area in suit. No one can tell when the surrounding land was definitely set aside as wakf ; but we can safely conjecture that, in the first instanco, Musalmans began...
Tag this Judgment!Visram Vasudeo Thakoor Vs. Tabaji Balaji Wagh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR348; 19Ind.Cas.820
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit upon a Khata executed by defendants `1 and 2 to defendant 3, Sitabai, on the 20th of May 1909 and duly assigned by Sitabai to the plaintiff on the 5th of June 1912.2. The first defence raised was that the suit was time-barred. I overruled that in limine but I should like to add a word or two in this judgment. The defendants relied upon the case of Bai Hemkore v. Masamalli I.L.R. (1902) Bom. 782. I think the facts of that case can be distinguished but the principle upon which it appears to have been decided might certainly lend itself to the kind of argument raised upon it by the defendants' counsel. Were I satisfied that the decision really governed this case I should of course have been bound by it but I should have still felt it my duty to express, with all deference, my own doubt whether that case was rightly decided. The facts were briefly that the defendant gave an acknowledgment of indebtedness to the plaintiff within the meaning of Section 19 of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhavdu Dhondu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR53
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application by the Government of Bombay for revision of an interlocutory order passed by Mr. Varley, the Sessions Judge of Khandesh, postponing the trial of a certain Sessions case on the ground- that in the Judge's opinion the commitment for trial to his Court was illegal. That opinion was based upon the view that the Mamlatdar's Court constituted under Bombay Act II of 1906 is not a civil Court within the meaning of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. We are of opinion that there is a uniform current of decisions by this Court adverse to the view which the Judge below took: see, for instance, In re Savanta ILR (1880) 5 Bom. 137; Bhagwandas v. Jedu (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 970; Narayan v. Tukaram : (1907)9BOMLR896 ; and Purshottam v. Mahadu : (1912)14BOMLR947 . We are further of opinion that there is nothing in the provisions of the present Act of 1906 to suggest that the decisions of this Court, such as In re Savanta, require any amendment or reconsideration. W...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dhanji Govindji Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR328
Batchelor, J.1. The only point urged in this application for revision is that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that the petitioner was the occupier of the factory within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act. It appears to us that the word 'occupier' there must bear the same meaning as it bears in similar enactments in and for its meaning there we have the authority of the Earl of Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. XIV, Section 1033. We there read that 'occupier' is a person who controls the factory or workshop and the work that is done there; and reference is made to the Scotch case of Ramsay v. Mackie (1904) 7 F. (Ct. of (sic)) where Lord M'Larensays that' occupier ' plainly means the person who regulates a factory and controls the work that is done there. If that be the meaning of the word in the Indian Statute there is nothing on the findings to suggest that the learned Magistrate's decision was wrong. We must, therefore, discharge the Rule....
Tag this Judgment!Mulraj Khatau Vs. Vishvanath Prabhuram Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR9
Moulton, J. 1. The question in this appeal is as to whether the appellant or the respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 29,426-14-0 now standing in Court to abide the result of the action. It represents the net proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of Dwarkadas Dharamsey who died on 8th August 1909.2. The appellant bases his claim on an assignment in writing under the hand of Dwarkadas Dharamsey, dated the 13th of August 1909. It is in form an absolute assignment, and was according to the evidence given under pressure from the appellant to whom Dwarkadas Dharamsey was then indebted in a much larger sum. The validity of the assignment is therefore established. It may well be that although absolute in form it was intended to be only by way of security so as to be subject to a right of redemption, but this does not affect the rights of the parties under the circumstances of the present case.3. The respondent bases his claim upon a deposit of the policy with him by Dwarkadas Dharam...
Tag this Judgment!Karsan Sadashiv Patil Vs. Gatlu Shivaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR227
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for an account of what was due upon a partnership between them and the defendants in respect of a certain liquor-selling business.2. The business of selling liquor in the Bombay Presidency is regulated by the provisions of the Abkari Act, Bombay Act V of 1878. It is provided by Section 16 that 'except as is hereinafter otherwise provided, no liquor and no intoxicating drug shall be sold without a license or pass from the Collector.' Section 43 imposes penalties upon whomsoever in contravention of the Act or of any rule or order made under the Act or of any license obtained under the Act sells liquor.3. Now the license under the Act was obtained by the defendant No. 1. It has many conditions expressed in it but the only material one for the purpose of this suit is condition No. 19 which provides:-' The licensee shall not sell, transfer to any person or sublet his right to sell country liquor obtained under the license, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Talukdari Settlement Officer Vs. Rikhavdas Parshottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR378
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by an alleged mortgagee against the Talukdari Settlement Officer and the Talukdar whose estate is in his charge, for a declaration that the first defendant had no right on behalf of the second defendant to take possession of the field alleged to be mortgaged to the plaintiff, and for an order for possession of the field. The field was originally part of the Talukdari estate owned by Jethusangji, the uncle of the second defendant. In 1862 Jethusangji granted this field together with other lands to Gobarsangji, father of the second defendant, as a cadet of the Talukdar family for jiwai or maintenance according to the custom in vogue among Talukdars. Estates so granted in jiwai according to custom descend by inheritance to the descendants of the grantee but revert to the grantor on failure of the grantee's line. On the 19th of April 1889 Gobarsangji mortgaged the field in question with possession to the plaintiff's father. In 1894 the mortgagor died...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »