Mumbai Court July 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: Mahadev Yadneshwar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR715
1. We must hold that in this case a sanction is necessary and the offence cannot be tried in the absence of a sanction from the Court which tried Shelke and before which the evidence, which is now said to have been fabricated, was adduced.2. The words 'in relation to an offence' ins. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code are wide enough to include evidence which was adduced before a Court and which was heard by the Court.3. That has been the case here and this case falls within the line of the decision of this Court in In re Khanderao Yeswant : (1912)14BOMLR362 . Following it we must hold that the trial is void in the absence of a sanction.4. We, therefore, set aside the proceedings before the Magistrate and direct him not to try the case as he has no jurisdiction to try it for want of the requisite sanction....
Kisan Kevji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.60
1. The proceedings in this case were initiated under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate who initiated them ought to have disposed of them himself; but instead of doing so, he sent up the case to the District Magistrate for action under Regulation XII of 1827. That he had no jurisdiction to do. The Code requires that he should pass the final order himself, either discharging or taking security from the accused.2. The District Magistrate, to whom the case was sent up by the first class Magistrate, assumed jurisdiction under Regulation XII of 1827 and has passed an order placing certain restrictions1 upon the personal liberty of the petitioners.3. Whether, if the District Magistrate had passed such an order independently of the proceedings under Section 110, it would have been legal is not the question before us now. But the proceeding having been initiated under Section 110, the Magistrate before whom it was initiated ought to, have himself disposed of it. T...
Emperor Vs. Shankar Balwant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.325
N.G. Chandavarkar, Ag. C.J.1. At the outset what we observe is that the learned Sessions Judge would have probably acquitted the accused were it not for the opinion of the Assessors. He seems to be of the opinion that in a Sessions case the Assessors are the judges of all questions of fact. That view of the law is erroneous. The Assessors are, no doubt, to assist the Judge but nowhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure has the Legislature invested the Assessors with the power of appreciating the evidence so as to bind the Judge. The theory of trial with the help of Assessors is that the system of Assessors forms, as it were, a stage towards the ultimate introduction of trial by a Jury. That was the object with which the Assessors' system was introduced in the earlier years of the introduction of Criminal Law by the British Indian Legislature in this country. The opinion of the Assessors must have, no doubt, regard paid to it but after all it is the Judge who is to decide the case on the...
Sakharam Govinda Vs. Dagadu Miran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR739
Narayan Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The lower appellate Court has not carried out the intention of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act in disallowing future interest. That Court has refused future interest merely because it says:-' Thus after satisfying the interest, Rs. 813-15-3 could be appropriated towards the payment of the principal, and the balance due for principal was only Rs. But it is difficult to see how the figure which the learned Judge in the Court below has given in support of his order as to future interest affects the question at all. 2. It is argued here for the respondent that under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act it was open to the lower Court to refuse future interest, that is, interest claimed from the date of the institution of the suit up to the date of the decree. That argument is not supported either by the express language of the Act or by anything which may be inferred from its provisions.3. In Section 13, Clause (g), the Legislature points out ...
Velchand Chhaganlal Vs. Lieut. E. Bourchier
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR777; 13Ind.Cas.853
Chandavarkar, Acting C.J.1. We are indebted to Mr. Shah for having undertaken to argue this case as amicus curice for the respondent but we do not wish to call upon him to reply to Mr. Desai who has put the case before us very clearly and there is no doubt upon the law that the lower Courts have taken the correct view.2. The whole question depends upon the construction of the (3) ILR (1911) All. 529. words of Clause 2 (b) of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, viz., 'Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of the Array Act or of any similar law for the time being in force.'3. Section 136 of the Statute 44 & 45 Vie. Clause 58, amended in 1895, provides that the salary of an Officer in the British Army serving in India shall be paid to him without deduction unless the Legislature in India has directed to the contrary in that behalf.4. The question, therefore, is whether there is any such direction in any Act of the Indian Legislature. The only law bearing upon that...
Shankar Vishnu Gokhale Vs. Raghunath Hari Dharap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR854; 17Ind.Cas.205
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. In the suit of 1899 there was no doubt an issue framed, raising the question whether the present respondent Hari, who was plaintiff therein, could sue alone to recover the debt in dispute from the defendant in that suit. And the Court trying it found that he could not sue alone and that Damodar, father of respondents 2 to 5, who was defendant 2 in that suit, had the right to be co-plaintiff therein. That finding was recorded upon the ground that the debt sued for was a debt due to a partnership of which Hari and Damodar were co-partners. That finding, however, was arrived at only for the purpose of the defendant sued in that litigation. But the Court did not, indeed was not, called upon to decide finally what the respective interests of Hari and Damodar inter se were as to the amount recovered from the debtor of the partnership and whether either Hari or Damodar was entitled as between themselves to the whole or any portion of the decretal de...
Emperor Vs. Shettepa Satapa Mudenavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR753
A Third Class Magistrate not being empowered to commit for trial cannot deal judicially with any stage of the proceedings in a case exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Where the Magistrate records a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions the statement is not evidence in a stage of judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. A statement so made and contradicted afterwards, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction and exercising it in the preliminary enquiry, will not furnish a basis for an alternative charge of giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding.Queen-Empress v. Bharma (1886) I. L. R. 1 Bom. 702, followed.Order 1. Following the Full Bench ruling in Queen-Empress v. Bharma ILR (1886) 11 Bom. 702 the Court reverses the conviction and sentence and directs that the accused be set at liberty....
Vithappa Devappa Patil Vs. Basagowda Devappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR771; 17Ind.Cas.10
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The present suit was one for partition brought by the appellant. His allegation was that he, defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of defendant No. 1, and two brothers of his, Rama and Laxmana, were members of a joint family, and that in 1886 defendant No. 1, the eldest member and manager, effected a partition with Rama and Laxmana, so that these two brothers having become separated in estate left the rest of the members of the family including the plaintiff joint, and that in 1907 defendant No. 1 turned the plaintiff out of the family house, in which he was living with the said defendant. Hence the suit for partition.2. Defendant No. 1, in his written statement, pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to a share in the property, because there had been already a partition among the members of the' family in the year 1886. In support of that allegation he produced a farkhat executed by Rama and Laxmana and by Laxmana as the...
Bai Ramkore Vs. Jamnadas Mulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR766; 17Ind.Cas.95
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The suit, which has led to this appeal, was brought by the respondent, to recover from the three appellants damages incurred by him on account of the giving away in marriage of his niece, Mangli, a minor, by appellants Nos. 1 and 2 to appellant No. 3, in contravention of the betrothal of the girl to one Hiralal, settled by the respondent, as her lawful guardian.2. The respondent is the paternal uncle of the girl. By a will of her father he and a brother of his were authorised to get the girl married. Accordingly, the respondent (the other brother having died) betrothed the girl to one Hiralal. But appellants 1 and 2, who are respectively mother and maternal uncle of the girl, gave her in marriage to appellant 3.3. The respondent complains that in consequence of that marriage he was unable to perform the contract of betrothal into which he had entered with Hiralal; that Hiralal demanded Rs. 2,000 as damages for the breach; and that the dispute...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›