Mumbai Court November 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.
In Re: Gopala Bhau Changula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR49
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the petitioner complains of an order made by the learned Magistrate under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby the petitioner is directed to pay compensation to certain persons whom he groundlessly accused of the offence of theft. The learned Magistrate, as his judgment clearly shows, came to the conclusion that the charge was deliberately false ; but if it was false it was also vexatious, and therefore he was entitled t6 apply the provisions of Section 250. Having regard to the current rulings of all the High Courts it is now settled that the provisions of Section 250 may be used to supply one form of punishment for a serious false charge deliberately and maliciously made. The decisions of! the Courts show that 250 is as applicable to such false charges as it is to a merely frivolous charge brought with the sole intent of annoying. Upon this point it will be enough to refer to Emperor v. Bai Asha (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 128 and Beni Madhub Kurmi ...
Atmaram Yekoba Vani Vs. Bhila Ganpat Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR223
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. A suit had been filed on behalf of a minor for partition by his next friend Umabai and she shortly after the institution of the suit had given a Mukhtiarpatra in general terms to a male relation. The Mukhtiarpatra did not refer expressly to submission to arbitration. Subsequently, the Mukhtiar, without bringing to the notice of the Court that he was consenting to a reference on behalf of the minor, agreed to a reference to arbitration, and after a considerable time an award was made by a Sirpunch or umpire awarding to the plaintiff a certain portion of the joint family-property.2. The plaintiff on attaining majority declined to be bound by the award.3.The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the award and proceeded with the hearing of the suit and passed a decree awarding to the plaintiff considerably more than he would have got under the award.4. This appeal is concerned with the question whether the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was...
Emperor Vs. Shivdas Omkar Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR315; 19Ind.Cas.507
Batchelor, J.1. The applicants in this case have been convicted under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, of the offence of voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The circumstances underlying the prosecution are these: The petitioners own a shop at Dhulia situated on the Agra Road, and the shop abuts on that road, which is lined by two gutters. Between the petitioners' shop and the near gutter there is a small strip of land which admittedly for a period of over forty years the petitioners have been using for the purpose of depositing their bales and other goods. Latterly a dispute arose between the Municipality and the petitioners with reference to the title to this strip of .land, the petitioners contending that it was their property and that the public road-way began beyond the gutter.2. On the 20th September 1911 the Municipality prosecuted the petitioners under the Municipal Act for an alleged encroachment upon this strip of land. The prosecu...
Emperor Vs. Banubhai Hadubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR66
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an acquittal. Notice has been served upon the accused person, but there is no appearance on his behalf. The point, however, involved in the appeal is, it seems to us, a very simple one.2. The facts are that the accused without having taken out a license for that purpose plied for hire a hand-lorry in the City of Ahmedabad to which the provisions of Bombay Public Conveyances Act VI of 1863 have been extended. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that hand-drawn lorries were not conveyances within the meaning of the Act, and upon that ground alone directed the accused's acquittal. We have, therefore, to see whether this view of the Magistrate's is the right view under the Statute.3. We begin with this consideration that there would appear to be no reason in the nature of things why hand-drawn lorries should be excluded from the operation of the Act. So far as regards the objects which an Act of this character is inten...
Emperor Vs. Ranchhod Bawla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR61
Batchelor, J.1. The question which arises for decision here is whether in a warrant case in respect of a non-com-poundable offence it is competent to the Magistrate on a private complainant's offering to withdraw from the prosecution, to enter an order of acquittal. We think that it is not so competent.2. The facts in this particular case are these: A complaint was made to the police accusing certain persons of the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. That is a non-compoundable offence. The police after inquiry committed the accused persons for trial to the Magistrate's Court. The complainant was examined and the trial was postponed till the 7th June. On that day complainant applied to the Magistrate to be allowed to withdraw from the case, urging that the accused persons were his labourers ; that they had agreed to restore the property which he had accused them of misappropriating; and that as the rainy season was approaching he wa...
In Re: Nanchand Shivchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR45
Batchelor, J.1. In this case there is pending against the present petitioner a prosecution which imputes to the petitioner the offence of attempting to fabricate false evidence against the complainant to the effect that the complainant offered to give bribes and threatened people in the matter of the election of the Sirur Municipality for the purpose of using such false evidence in a judicial-proceeding, that is to say, in the proceeding which took place before the District Judge, acting under Section 22 of the Bombay District Municipal Act of 1901. The prosecution is pending in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court. The question which arises on this petition is whether such a prosecution is competent without previous sanction having been obtained under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly the offence alleged against the petitioner falls under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and that is one of the sections which are mentioned in Clause (1) of Section 195 of the ...
Sardar Kirpal Singh Vs. Sardar Balwant Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR79
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in the suit from a decree, dated the 16th January 1909, of the Chief Court of the Punjab, which varied a decree, dated the 31st July 1907, of the District Judge of Gujranwala.2. The plaintiffs, who are Sikh Jats, and the sons of Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh, deceased, brought their suit in the Court of the District Judge of Gujranwala, to obtain possession of ancestral lands which had been conveyed in their lifetime by their father to the defendant by a deed dated the 26th August, 1892. They alleged in their plaint that, according to the custom of the agriculturists of the Punjab, their father was not competent to sell the ancestral lands without necessity, and that their father was a debauchee and an extravagant person, and there was no necessity for the sale, and they prayed for a decree cancelling the sale-deed and for possession on condition that they should pay to the defendant the money, if any, which might be proved to have been paid ...
The Government Pleader Vs. Annaji Narayan Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR231; 19Ind.Cas.529
Batchelor, J.1. This is a petition by the Government Pleader who invokes the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court against two pleaders, named Deshpande and Kanmadi. The former was enrolled as a District Pleader in 1895, and the latter was enrolled in 1896. The charges against these persons are set out in detail in the Government Pleader's petition and need not at present be recapitulated. It will be enough for the moment to say that they involve alleged acts of fraud and gross misconduct. These proceedings are taken under class. 56 of Regulation II of 1827, which provides that a pleader accused of a criminal offence, or guilty of misbehaviour or neglect of duty, shall be liable to be suspended or dismissed ; and the first argument which has been addressed to us turns upon the construction of the words of this clause, particularly the word ' misbehaviour' which is the governing word in this case. For the purposes of considering this argument we must of course assume that the acts of ...
Bhikha Fakira Vs. Raichand Manji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR68
Batchelor, J.1. This suit was brought by the present appellants for the taking of accounts under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. One of the questions raised was whether the present appellants were agriculturists within the definition in the Act and that is the only question which is now before us. Both the lower Courts have decided it against the appellants. It appears to us, however, that their decision upon this point cannot be accepted and that the reasoning upon which it proceeds is mistaken. It is admitted that the appellants, who are Bharwads, derive their livelihood partly from the cultivation of the land and partly from the rearing of goats and sheep and the sale of these animals and of milk and ghee.2. In the District Court the learned Judge was satisfied that the annual amount of strictly agricultural income might be estimated at Rs. 100. It was not clear what amount was derived from the pastoral sources, but the learned Judge says that it must excee...
Balmukund Kesurdas Vs. Bhagvandas Kesurdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR209
Rao, J.1. One Kesurdas Bhaktidas died in 1896, leaving three sons Bhagvandas, Tribhovandas and Balmukunddas. Tribhovandas died unmarried on 8th May 1900. On 19th April 1905 plaintiff Balmukunddas filed this suit to recover possession of certain property from his brother Bhagvandas. He alleged that Bhagvandas had separated from the family during his father's life-time in or about the year 1886, that after his separation the father Kesurdas lived in union with his two sons the plaintiff and Tribhovandas, and that after their father's death they continued to live in union as members of a joint family till the latter's death in 1900, that thereupon the plaintiff alone became entitled by survivorship to the property which was under Tribhovandas's management, and that after Tribhovandas's death the defendant wrongfully and fraudulently took possession of the same. Hence this suit.2. Defendant Bhagvandas contended that he had never separated from his family, that he was joint with his two bro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »