Mumbai Court May 1912 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Jani Hira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR503
1. For the reasons stated by the Sessions Judge in his statement of the case we think that this is not a case for a criminal Court. The accused and the complainant had entered into a contract which was clearly void for immorality. Therefore the complainant would not be entitled to obtain any relief from a Civil Court for its breach. That is no reason why he should be allowed to prosecute the accused on a charge of cheating. Therefore, we think, that the Magistrate's conviction and sentence must be reversed and the accused acquitted and discharged....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ananda Laxman Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR504
1. In this case the accused was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Nandgaon for having committed theft under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. Notice was issued by the High Court against the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced as it appeared that the Magistrate had taken too lenient a view of the case. We must deal with the question of enhancement on the footing that the accused was properly convicted and that the Magistrate found correctly that the accused had committed the theft in a railway train. This is an offence of a peculiarly heinous character, extremely difficult to discover, and therefore profitable to those who are engaged in committing such thefts, and it is desirable, we think, that when the Magistrate is satisfied that an accused has committed such an offence, the sentence should be of a deterrent nature. In this case it appears that the accused had already been once convicted of theft i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhujabali Akappa Gorwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR583
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. We do not think we ought to interfere in this case. The word ' harbour' in the section must be construed liberally. A man charged with an offence might today be found in the house of another, and although he might be living in the house owned by that other person, yet if for all practical purposes the, harbouring was at the instance of some person not owning the house but visiting him, then this last person is in law a person harbouring the accused. Here the finding is that the harbouring was at the instance of and by the accused. We reject the application. Heaton, J.2. I agree that we ought not to interfere in this case. I think the two lower Courts have arrived by a series of inferences from proved facts at a conclusion which is justified by the facts....
Tag this Judgment!Vassanji Khimji Vs. Shapurji Burjorji Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR493
Macnaghten, J.1. The question in this case turns simply upon the construction of a very short document. It is f' addressed to the appellants, and is in these words:-' In consideration of your having at my request acceded to the proposal of the Secretaries, Treasurers, and Agents of the Tricumdas Mills Company, Limited, to advance to the Mills a sum of Rupees one lac and fifty thousand, I hereby bind myself to you to procure a loan within two weeks of Rupees eleven lacs as the first mortgage of the Mills block property, and to pay to you thereout the said sum of Rupees one lac and fifty thousand agreed to be advanced by you to the Mills.'2. Everybody is now agreed that what took place after the execution of that document can have no bearing on the construction of it. All that the admitted evidence shows is that the appellants wanted some real and substantial security for their advance. They advanced the lac and a half, and the only question is, what is the meaning of this guarantee Does...
Tag this Judgment!Champat Singh Vs. Jangu Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1223
Macnaghten, J. 1. This was an appeal from an order of the Judicial Commissioners dismissing an application by the appellants, as mortgagors, for the execution of a redemptior decree. The mortgage in respect of which the decree was made was a usufructuary mortgage for a period which has expired, but there was a provision for payment on redemptior Seportad by J. M. Parikh, Bar of a sum in respect of interest. The mode of calculating interest was a matter in controversy in the redemption proceedings in regard to which this Board differed from the view of the Judicial Commissioners.2. By the judgment of this Board, dated the 28th of July 1906, the respondents, the mortgagees, were held entitled to simple interest at the rate of 24 per cent, per annum on Rs. 3,519, the original mortgage-debt as from the 14th of January 1867, the date of the mortgage, as well as to mesne profits until redemption.3. In 1902, previously to the judgment of this Board of the 28th of July 1906, the mortgagors had...
Tag this Judgment!Merwanji Mancherji Cama Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR55
Shaw, J.1. Hypothetical building schemes are the usual basis of valuation in the case of building land. I can say this from my own experience of such cases. The ordinary course will be to call a surveyor who will say that in his opinion the land is worth so much. When asked for his reasons he will proceed to unfold his scheme, saying that he values it at so much because an owner, by expending so much on buildings of such and such a description, can realise such and such a rent, which when capitalized will be worth the sum named by him. In cross-examination, the surveyor's scheme will or course have to be tested in all its details. But the scheme is certainly admissible in evidence and a proper mode of valuation.]Macnaghten, J.2. I am of the same opinion. Hypothetical building schemes seem to me to be the most obvious basis of valuation in cases like these. Of course the weight to be attached to such a scheme is a question for the tribunal hearing the case.3. The other Law Lords also co...
Tag this Judgment!Sevak Kirpashankar Daji Vs. Gopalrao Manohar Tambekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR13
Macnaghten, J.1. Subject to the modifications which their Lordships have suggested and which have been assented to by Counsel for the respondents, their Lordships will affirm the scheme. It is very largely a matter of discretion, and the appellants have not satisfied their Lordships that discretion has been improperly exercised or that the High Court have not given due consideration to matters which they were directed to take into consideration. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that, subject to the modifications referred to, this appeal ought to be dismissed.2. With regard to the costs of this appeal, their Lordships think that they should all come out of the Temple funds. In the first instance, the appellant must, of course, pay the costs of the respondents, and they will have the right to :recoup themselves as regards those costs and their own costs out of the Temple funds....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›