Mumbai Court December 1912 Judgments
Jusab Tharia Vs. G.S. Morrison
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR249
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Judge at Zanzibar who has awarded plaintiff the sura of Rs. 1000 as damages for slander. The learned Judge has written an extremely careful judgment, and the only point upon which counsel for the appellant feels himself able to attack that judgment is in regard to the question of privilege. It is admittedly not possible to challenge the Judge's findings, if he is right in his view that the only privilege, which the defendant enjoyed in respect of the statement made to Crawley, was a qualified privilege. Counsel, however, contends that in the circumstances of the case the privilege should be regarded as absolute. Now the first answer to that is that that was a case which was never taken in the trial Court, where the utmost that the defence claimed was a qualified privilege. But the contention on its merits also must fail. It is sought to establish the absolute privilege by reference to the decision in Watson v. M'Ewan [190...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nilkanth Ramchandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR175; 19Ind.Cas.333
Batchelor, J.1. A complaint was, on the 23rd February 1908, filed against the present petitioner under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. On the following day a warrant was issued for his arrest but was returned unserved. On the 6th June 1908 a proclamation was issued under Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the petitioner to appear within forty days. On the 6th July 1908 an order was passed by the Magistrate for the attachment of the petitioner's property. On the 24th September of the same year the attachment was actually effected. On the 10th March 1910 the petitioner was arrested. He was convicted in July 1910 and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. In June 1911 he came out of jail and made an application for the restoration of his property which had been attached. The application has been refused on the ground that it was not made within two years of the date of attachment as required by Section 89 of the Code.2. From the Magistrate's order refusing the restoration ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Subbappa Channappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR303; 19Ind.Cas.331
Batchelor, J.1. In this case we have had a careful and thorough argument from Mr. Kelkar, but he has not succeeded in satisfying us that there is any good ground for supposing that the learned Sessions Judge's judgment is in any particular wrong with regard to the conviction of these two appellants. The conviction of them which now concerns us was of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, each appellant being sentenced to transportation for life. We desire at the outset to express our entire concurrence with the learned Judge's action in altering the charge as originally framed to a charge of murder, and with the reasons which the learned Judge has given for that action. We think he is quite right in saying that where culpable homicide has been committed, prima facie the principal issue is : whether that culpable homicide does not amount to murder, and in all ordinary cases that issue ought to be tried, and ought not to be prejudged, by any authority less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Anandram Marwadi Vs. Gowbai Dhondibu Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR278; 19Ind.Cas.591
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The facts which give rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title executed a mortgage in 1885 in favour of the defendant's predecessors-in-title under which the mortgagee was to be entitled to possession for a period of sixteen years. During the currency of that period, in the year 1888, a Marwari creditor of the mortgagor filed a suit on a simple money-claim in the Vinchur Court and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree the equity of redemption of the mortgagor, that is to say the subsisting right, title and interest of the mortgagor, in the mortgaged property was put up for sale and purchased by a person Bandu Uderam who is not a party to these proceedings. In the year 1896 the mortgagee took a conveyance from Tikaram Uderam who described himself as the brother of Bandu Uderam in whose name the Court-purchase had taken ace of the interest purchased at that sale. Then at the end of the year 1908 the plaintiff filed this sui...
Tag this Judgment!Srimat Prathivadi Bhayankaram Govinda Charyulu Vs. Sri Rajah Rangayya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR463
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras dated the 9th of March 1906, and arises out of a suit brought by one Desika Charyulu, since deceased, the father of the present appellants, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the Kistna District, to recover possession of a village called Veleru, lying in the sub-district of Nuzvid. 2. The village in question appertained originally to the zamindari of Nuzvid, which belongs to the first defendant. It appears to have been granted in perpetuity somewhere about the middle of the 18th century by the zamindar of the time to a priestly family whose last direct representative, Govinda Chariar, died in 1847. He left him surviving a widow named Perindevi and an infant son who died shortly after. Perindevi on the death of Govinda Chariar, obtained possession of the entire property including the village of Veleru, first as the guardian of her son, and afterwards as his heir entitled to the, limited estate...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Ramdas Vs. Nagnath Shambhuappa Kathley
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR126; 19Ind.Cas.95
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover a sum of money alleged to have been paid to the defendants by mistake. The plaintiff, who is the grandson of the deceased Chunilal, is a minor suing by his guardian ad litem. The defendants are the heirs and representatives of Shambhuappa who was a partner of the deceased Chunilal. The accounts were made up from time to time and finally the amount found due to Shambhuappa was settled in December 1911 and mutual releases given and taken. A sum of some Rs. 4,000 was then paid by cross cheques by the plaintiff to the defendants. In April 1912, on going over the accounts, the guardian's son pointed out to him that a sum of Rs. 11,000 odd, for which the defendants were liable in proportion to their interest in the partnership, had been omitted; and it is to recover the defendant's four anna share in that liability by mistake overpaid to them that the plaintiff has filed this suit. 2. The suit was filed in July 1912 and the summons was made returnab...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jaffur Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR106; 19Ind.Cas.204
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision, and the judgment which it is sought to revise is a judgment convicting the petitioners under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act IV of 1887.2. The facts are these : On the night of 22nd September last, Mr. Harker, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay, received certain information in connection with an offence of gambling. He administered an oath to his informant and took that informant's statement. He then associated with himself other persons, including certain police officers, and raided a house in the City, in which house these petitioners were found with cards and small coin lying near them.3. The section under which the petitioners have been convicted lays down that whoever is found in any common gaming-house playing or gaming with cards shall be liable to a certain punishment ; and a ' common gaming-house' is defined as meaning a house, room or place in which cards, dice, tables or other instruments of gaming...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. J. Moment
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR27
Chancellor (Haldane), J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the Government of India could make a law the effect of which was to debar a Civil Court from entertaining a claim against the Government to any right over land. The question is obviously one of great importance. The proceedings out of which the appeal arises related to an ordinary dispute about the title to land, in the course of which there emerged a claim to damages for wrongful interference with the plaintiffs property. The only point which their Lordships have to decide is whether Section 41 (b) of the Act IV of 1898 (Burma), was validly enacted. A majority of the Judges of the Chief Court of Lower Burma have held that it was not, and the Secretary of State appeals against the judgment. T The section enacts that no Civil Court is to have jurisdiction B to determine a claim to any right over land as against the Government. In the Court below it was held that this enactment was ultra vires as contravening a provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Suraj NaraIn Vs. Pandit Ikbal Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR456
Ameer Ali, J.1. The point for determination involved in this appeal turns on the question whether the plaintiffs, who were admittedly members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, separated as they allege in October 1901, or whether they continued joint in property, if not in food and worship, as the defendants contend up to the institution of the suit in 1905.2. The parties are Kashmiri Brahmins settled in Oudh and, with the exception of the defendant Ratan Lal, are descended from one Pandit Bishan Narain who died over forty years ago. He left four sons, of whom Pandit Suraj Narain the first plaintiff is the only one now surviving. On Bishan Narain's death his eldest son Raj Narain became the Karta of the joint family. On his death in 1890, Ram Narain, the next in order of seniority, assumed charge of the family estate. He died in October 1900, leaving a daughter who is married to the defendant Ratan Lal. Her son Raj Indar Narain appears to have been adopted by Ram N...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulam Ahmed Ali Saheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR104
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the District Judge, Mr. Boyd, acting as District Judge, gave sanction for the prosecution of the present petitioner on a charge triable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been tried for that offence and has been convicted of it. He has preferred an appeal against the conviction and the appeal is now pending before Mr. Boyd in his capacity as Sessions Judge of the District. Application being made to Mr. Boyd for the transfer of the appeal to another Court, the learned Judge declined to move in the matter and relied upon this Court's decision in Empress v. Caspar D'Silva I.L.R. (1882) Bom. 479, which was followed by the Calcutta High Court in Queen-Empress v. Sarat Chundra Rakhit I.LR. (1889) Cal. 766. We think that the learned Judge was right, and that the cases cited by him are good authority for the proposition that he as Sessions Judge is legally competent to hear and dispose of this appeal. Nor for ourselves do we see any reason at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »