Mumbai Court August 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.
Dhondu Dagdu Patil Vs. Secretary of State for India?
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR949; 17Ind.Cas.673
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, had during the years 1908 to 1910 a licence for the sale of country liquor in the town of Nasik. As his work during that period was found to be satisfactory the Collector of the District gave him notice intimating that that Officer was willing to renew his licence for the year beginning with the 1st of April 1910. On the 14th of March 1910 the plaintiff expressed his willingness to accept the licence, and under Section 31 of the Abkari Act (Bom. Act V of 1878) executed the agreement therein referred to. On the 31st March 1910 the Collector informed the plaintiff that his licence was suspended, and on the 6th of April following the Collector further intimated to the plaintiff that he had cancelled the plaintiff's licence on the ground that he had come to learn that the plaintiff had given secret bribes to the Collector's Head Clerk. Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiff appealed from the Collector's re...
Zulekabai Vs. Ebrahim Haji Vyedina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR846; 17Ind.Cas.198
Dinshaw D. Davar, Kt., J.1. Haji Oomer Ebrahim, a Cutchi Memon, died about twenty-eight years ago leaving him surviving his widow Zulekabai the plaintiff herein, two sons named Elias and Oomer, and a daughter named Asibai also called Amibai. At the time of his death, he was possessed of two immoveable' properties situated at Mauritius. Two years after the death of Haji Oomer, his son Elias died and the other son Oomer died in 1899. They were both minors and unmarried at the time of their death. Oomer's daughter Asibai was married to Kaderdina alias Kadu Vyedina, a brother of the defendants herein. Asibai died on the 31st of January 1909 childless and intestate and Kaderdina died on the 26th of December 1908. The plaintiff claims that on the deaths of both her sons she became entitled to the Mauritius properties ' for a Hindu mother's interest therein.' She has filed this suit praying, amongst other things, ' that the defendants may be ordered to deliver to the plaintiff forthwith the t...
Jetha Bhima and Co. Vs. Lady Janbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR904
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The material facts are that Balkrishna, a judgment-creditor of Mahomed Mehdi, attached on the 21st of December 1895 the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in certain securities for money held by the receiver in the suit for the administration of the estate of Tharia Topan, the father of the judgment-debtor. On the 6th of January 1896 the judgment-debtor assigned the whole of his right, title and interest in the estate of his father to his mother, the defendant in this suit. In the year 1898 the present plaintiffs brought Suit No. 566 against the judgment-debtor Mahomed Mehdi and obtained a decree on the 16th of September 1898. In 1899 Mahomed Mehdi took the benefit of the Insolvent Act but after a time his petition was dismissed. A fresh petition was filed in February 1903 and he was again adjudged insolvent but has not yet obtained his final discharge. In 1904 the present plaintiffs levied an attachment upon the same property as had already been ...
Manohar Ramchandra Hinge Vs. the Collector of Nasik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR943; 17Ind.Cas.670
Batchelor, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the Court below was right in its view that the suit was governed by the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act on the footing that the plaintiff is an agriculturist. Upon the title of the suit itself it is brought by ' The Collector of Nasik District representing the Court of Wards for the estate of Gopalrao Shivdevrao Rajebahadur.'2. Mr. Kelkar's first argument is that the real plaintiff is the Court of Wards, and it is that Court's status which should be regarded, and not the status of Gopalrao Shivdevrao. It is, says the learned pleader, the same case as if a person being himself an agriculturist assigned his property to a non-agriculturist stranger. The assignee could not claim the benefit of the special Act. It appears to us, however, that the Court of Wards bears no resemblance to the assignee in the case put. As appears quite clear from the Court of Wards Act (Bom. Act I of 1905) passim, and especially from Section...
Emperor Vs. Istlingapa Shivapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR887; 17Ind.Cas.542
Batchelor, J.1. We are of opinion that the Magistrate, Mr. Kittur, has failed properly to understand the nature of this offence. He finds that the three accused severely beat the deceased man with a piece of stone and with a stick ; that they kicked him with their sandaled boots in the stomach. Within a week of the injuries thus inflicted, peritonitis supervened and the deceased died of that malady after seven days. It is just possible on the record to suggest a doubt whether the peritonitis was the consequence of the injuries, and for this reason we have refrained from ordering the accused's commitment for trial on a far more serious charge. It is certain, however, that the injuries were such as to endanger life within the meaning ' of Section 320 of the Indian penal Code, and the three accused are consequently guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325. But the Magistrate has convicted them under Section 304A or in the alternative under Section 323 of voluntarily c...
Malhar Bhagvant Kulkarni Vs. Narsinh Krishna Majli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR941; 17Ind.Cas.665
Batchelor, J.1. We are of opinion that in this case the lower Courts were wrong in thinking that this was a suit governed by the provisions of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs as trustees of a public religious trust. They were appointed trustees on the 26th April 1908. The defendants' father had been manager of the trust property from 1883 up to his death in 1905. After his death his accounts were examined by the plaintiffs-trustees who discovered, as they allege, that a large balance due to the temple was with him. They, therefore, as trustees, now sue to recover property belonging to the trust which has gone wrongfully into the possession of defendants who are strangers to the trust. To such a suit as this' Section 92 has no application : it is a suit, not by persons interested in the trust against defaulting trustees, but by the trustees against outsiders alleged to be in wrongful possession of the trust property. The extent and meaning ...
Dwarkanath Amrit Deshpande Vs. Mahadev Balkrishna Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR938; 17Ind.Cas.661
Batchelor, J.1. The point raised for the appellants-defend, ants in this appeal is that under Sections 4 and 6 of the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871 this suit does not lie without a certificate from the Collector. Admittedly such a certificate was refused on the plaintiffs' application. The only question, therefore, now before us is whether Section 4 of the Pensions Act debars the Civil Court from entertaining the suit without such a certificate. It appears to us that if regard is had to nothing but the words of Section 4 of the Statute and to the pleadings and the nature of this suit, there can be no reasonable doubt but that Civil Court is ousted of its jurisdiction. Section 4 lays down that ' No Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land-revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such pension or grant, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim or right f...
Mahadeo Balkrishna Deshpande and ors. Vs. Dwarkanath Amrit Deshpande a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom91
Batchelor, J.1. The point raised for the appellants-defendants in this appeal is that under Sections 4 and, 6 of the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871 this suit does not lie without a certificate from the Collector. Admittedly such a certificate was refused on the plaintiffs' application. The only question, therefore, now before us is whether Section 4 of the Pensions Act debars the Civil Court from entertaining the suit without such a certificate. It appears to us that if regard is had to nothing but the words of Section 4 of the Statute and to the pleadings and the nature of this suit, there can be no reasonable doubt but that Civil Court is ousted of its jurisdiction. Section 4 lays down that 'No Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land-revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such pension or grant, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim or right for...
Mahomed Ibrahim Haji Gulam Saheb Londay Vs. Abdul Latif Haji Mahomed I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR987; 17Ind.Cas.689
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of this case, which it is necessary to state for our decision, are to a great extent set out by Mr. Justice Macleod very concisely in his judgment of the 1st of July in Suit 338 of 1906 as follows :-On the 16th June 1851 one Fatehbibi executed a deed in the nature of a Wakf whereby she settled two properties : (1) a house in Kazi Street, (2) a chawl at Duncan Cross Lane in trust for her grand-daughter Mariambibi for life and thereafter on her descendants from generation to generation and in default thereof on the settlor's husband's relatives and their descendants from generation to generation in perpetuity and in default with an ultimate trust for the education and instruction of Mahomedan youths. The settlor's husband was appointed first trustee or Mutawali and provision was made in the deed for a due succession of Mutawalis. Mariambibi received the rents and profits till she died in 1857. The first Mutawali, the settlor's husband, died in 1854 and ...
Emperor Vs. Alibhai Miabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR875; 17Ind.Cas.531
1. We are of opinion that the Magistrate has come to the right conclusion with regard to the construction of Section 18 of the Public Conveyances Act (VI of 1863).2. We think the object of the section was to provide that the licensee or driver of a public conveyance shall have a clean list of fares with him in order that he may be in a position on demand to produce the same for the benefit of the hirer or passenger. The provisions of the section are framed solely for the benefit of the hirer or the passenger, and it is when the list is not produced on demand by the hirer or passenger that the penalty can be imposed.3. The case for the prosecution cannot be put higher than this that the section is capable of two constructions. In a case of such ambiguity the Court ought to lean in favour of the accused.4. We dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of acquittal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »