Mumbai Court February 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.
Gurbasappa Sangappa Kunchagnur Vs. Rango Venkatesh Khasnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR563
N.G. Chandavarkar J. 1. The lands in dispute were Deshgat Inam held by plaintiffs' ancestors as Desais for service. Those ancestors mortgaged the Inam lands to the grand-father of defendant No. 3, with possession. Thereafter, that is, in 1856, ' the Inam lands were made Khalsa, i.e. declared forfeited by an order of Government communicated by the Mamlatdar (See Ext. 114) to the mortgagee who was in possession under the usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagee, however, after the forfeiture continued in possession and went on paying assessment in respect of the lands to Government. The plaintiffs, as mortgagors, brought the suit, which has led to this appeal, to redeem, and the action was resisted by the defendant upon the ground mainly that the order of forfeiture in 1856 deprived the plaintiffs of all right to the lands and that the title thereafter became vested in the defendant by reason of the fact that he (the defendant) was allowed by the Collector to continue in possession and pay t...
Emperor Vs. Ganpat Balkrishna Rode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR310
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. In ray opinion the case is a very clear one, and the learned Sessions Judge has fallen into errors both of law and of fact in reversing the careful judgment of the Magistrate, who tried this case and convicted the accused.2. First, we have the admitted handwriting of the documents which consist of letters, deeds and post-cards. The hand-writting on them is admitted to be that of the accused. Now, comparing that handwriting in Modi with the Modi handwriting on the disputed letter, Exhibit 1 A, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that it is the accused's handwriting. The resemblance, in my opinion, is very close, and whoever is familiar with Modi handwriting must, I think, come to that conclusion. It is unnecessary for me to detail the reasons which have led me to that conclusion, but I may say in short that the matras, the cast of the writing, and the similarity of most of the letters, all are, in my opinion, a warrant for holding that the writer of Exhibit 1...
Emperor Vs. C.W. King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR236
Dinsha Davar, J.1. With reference to Mr. Inverarity's application to dispense with the attendance of the third accused from the Court during the trial, I have now had the advantage of seeing the learned Chief Justice and the other Judges who presided at the recent Tribunal which tried the Nasik Conspiracy case, and I have ascertained that that Court dispensed with the attendance of one of the accused, who was suffering from appendicitis, under the powers which they held were by implication conferred on the High Court by Section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That is a precedent which I have no hesitation in following in this case. Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Magistrate to dispense with the attendance of the accused in cases where he issues a summons and it seems to me that it could not have been the policy of the Legislature that the High Court should not have similar powers in all proper cases.2. Major Gordon Tucker has stated in his evidence that it wou...
Emperor Vs. Lalji Bhanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR306
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioner Lalji Bhanji was accused No. I at the trial before the Magistrate, and the charge against him was, first, under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, and, secondly, under Section 465 of the said Code. The first charge was that he in or about the months of January and February 1911, at Viramgaum, being a clerk of Messrs. Byramji and Ardeshir, and being entrusted with Rs. 204-4-0 in such capacity, did commit criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge was that he in or about January, February and March 1911, at Viramgaum, did make false documents, viz., the transhipping register, daily reports and monthly bills (Exhibits E. F. and G.), intending that the documents forged shall be used for the purpose of committing the offence of criminal breach of trust by a servant. He was convicted by the Magistrate of both these offences. But in appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction on the...
Yamnava Govind Appaji Vs. Laxuman Bhimrao Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR543
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The question of Hindu Law which has been argued before us is covered by direct authority in the case of Ramchandra v. Gopal ILR (1908) 32 Bom. 619 : 10 Bom. L.R. 948 and it would be impossible for us to differ from the law propounded in the judgments there, unless we were clearly satisfied either that the conclusion was obviously opposed to the texts in Hindu Law, or opposed to any earlier case decided by this Court or by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That the decision in question decided the point as one arising before it directly for the first time is unquestionable. That there is no earlier case either of this Court or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council deciding the point in direct terms is also undoubted.2. Mr. Khare's learned argument invites us to put upon certain texts in the Dattaka Mimansa an interpretation different from that which has been put upon them by the judgments of Chaubal J. and my learned colleague who forms a memb...
Debi Mangal Prasad Singh Vs. Mahadeo Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR220
Robson, J.1. The question to be determined in this case is whether immoveable property, obtained by a Hindu widow on partition of the joint family property under the Mitakshara law, is part of her stridhan in the narrow sense of that word, indicating her separate property or peculium which passes on her death to her own heirs; or is merely part of her stridhan in the wider sense in which the word is sometimes used, as indicating any property in which she may have some right of proprietorship.2. The property in question originally belonged to one Gaya Parshad, who, with his three sons, formed a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law. He died leaving three sons and a widow, Dulhan Sahibzad Kunwari. One of his sons Sheo Partap Singh, died in 1889, leaving a widow and his son, the plaintiff-appellant. In 1894 a partition of the joint family property took place, at the suit of the plaintiff, under the guardianship of his mother, and in that suit the Court apportioned one-fourth s...
In Re: G.W. Claridge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR231
Dinsha Davar, J.1. One Mahomed Khan of Hoti is the third accused in a case that has been committed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for trial at this Sessions and Monday next has been fixed for the trial of that case.2. On the 5th of February his counsel applied to me for a Rule against Messrs. G. W. Claridge and A. E. Claridge, who are the publishers of a weekly newspaper known as 'The English Mail' calling upon them to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt or why such other order as to the Court may seem fit should not be made against them. The learned Counsel drew my attention to the second paragraph in the column of' Bombay Notes' in the issue of the 19th of January of that newspaper, and a rule was granted which has been argued before me to-day.3. The respondents have put in an affidavit in which an apology is tendered, 'if the Court is of opinion that any part of the paragraph would prejudice the Khan of Hoti.' This the respondents have no right to ask. The C...
Emperor Vs. Jina Badhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR163
Chandavarkar, J.1. Neither the proclamation nor any copy is forthcoming in this case to satisfy the Court that either the proclamation was issued, or if it was issued, that any period of time was prescribed thereby. There were, no doubt, some materials upon the record to show that a proclamation was perhaps issued. But those materials afford ground for mere conjecture, but no certainty which is essential in a criminal case where the Court is asked to confiscate private property.2. We think that Magistrates ought to take particular care in such cases to preserve proclamations and the record must be so clear as to satisfy the Court that all the legal formalities duly observed. We think that in this case the evidence is no sufficient to show that the formalities were observed by the Court. On that ground the rule must be made absolute and the order of the Court below confiscating the property must b set aside and the property ordered to be returned to the petitioner. We may refer in suppo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›