Mumbai Court April 1912 Judgments
Rani Dharam Kunwar Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR485
Robson, J.1. The appellant is the widow of one Raj Raghubir Singh, and she sued the defendant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur to obtain a declaration that she had not adopted him as a son to her deceased husband and that if, in fact, any ceremony of adoption had been per formed, it was invalid, owing to the absence of authority or her part from her husband to make such adoption. She further prayed that a document purporting to be a deed of adoption dated the 13th January 1899, should be declared void as being executed by her without such authority as aforesaid.2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit with costs and the High Court of Allahabad confirmed his decree.3. Raja Raghubir Singh was. the owner of the extensive Land-haura Estate or Raj in the District of Saharanpur, in the United Provinces. He died on the 23rd April 1868, at the age of twenty years, leaving the appellant, the Rani, his widow and sole heir. She was then only fourteen years old, and enceinte....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jafu Bapu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR501
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for revision of a sentence passed upon one Jafu Bapu under Clause (f) of Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act of 1878. That clause provides a penalty for any person who has in his possession or under his control any arms in contravention of the provisions of Sections 14 and 15. The accused was the servant of one Chhotabhai who was exempted from the provisions of the Arms Act; in other words, was licensed to bear this particular arm, a gun. Chhotabhai, however, died two years ago, and the search of the quarters belonging to the accused has revealed the existence of the gun in those quarters. It is said the responsibility cannot be attributed to the accused but ought to be attributed to Vithaldas who succeeded Chhotabhai in the management of the property, and whose business it was, it is said, to renew the license which Chhotabhai had enjoyed. It appears to me that whatever may be the value of that argument on the question of moral responsibility, it h...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Manilal Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR499
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the learned First Class Magistrate of Ahmedabad who found the accused persons guilty of assembling for the purpose of wagering in a street and sentenced them to the payment of a fine. The only question involved in the application is whether the piece of land upon which the accused persons were assembled is a street within the meaning of the definition in Clause (e) of Section 3 of the Bombay District Police Act IV of 1890. That definition is inclusive in its terms, and ' street' is said to include, among other things, any road or square, court, alley or passage accessible to the public. That this place is a square or a court within the meaning of the definition is not denied. What is denied is that it is accessible to the public. The only question, therefore, at issue is whether this place is or is not accessible to the public; by that, as it appears to me, is meant whether any member of the public as such me...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvandas Parashram Vs. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomonji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR807; 17Ind.Cas.152; 19Ind.Cas.29
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendant in April 1911 alleging that in June 1910 defendant requested them to act as his pakka adalias, that in consequence of such instructions they entered into contracts for the sale of large quantities of cotton and linseed which resulted in heavy losses These they seek to recover from the -defendant after giving him credit for a large sum which, it is alleged, he deposited with them as margin money.2. The defendant pleads that he entered into cotton and linseed contracts with the plaintiffs as principals and that the common understanding between the parties was that no delivery was to be given or taken but that differences alone should be dealt in. He denies that the plaintiffs acted as his pukka ad adatias.3. On the 19th January 1911 the defendant obtained leave to administer interrogatories to the plaintiffs. The affidavit of the managing clerk of defendant's solicitors supporting the application states that in order to a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›