Mumbai Court September 1912 Judgments
Vyasacharya Narayanacharya Vs. Venkubai Rangacharya Upadya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1109; 17Ind.Cas.741
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In my opinion the question referred is one not necessarily involved in the decision of the case, and one which should not now be considered. The alternative suggestion in the referring judgment is that the question for our decision should be limited with reference to the facts of the case. I agree that it should be so limited but I do not think that in that condition it is uncovered by sufficient authority.2. The document which purports to transfer the absolute interest in certain immoveable property to the daughter of the adopting mother also reserves for the use of the latter all the rest of the property then in her possession for life subject to certain outstanding charges for maintenance of other widows. Notwithstanding this reservation, the adopted son sued for the Hrtroteof the property of his adoptive father in Suit No. 212 of 1895 immediately he attained majority and obtained possession of that property under a decree of the Court from his adopting moth...
Tag this Judgment!Narottam Rajaram Vs. Mohanlal Kahandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1154; 17Ind.Cas.891
Batchelor, J.1. The appellants before us are the plaintiffs and they sued for accounts and for redemption of certain mortgaged property under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The trial Court took careful and elaborate accounts under the Act from a period so far removed as Samvat 1926. As a result it found that the mortgage, which was a mortgage with possession, had been paid off, and therefore decreed that possession should be restored to the plaintiffs on their payment of the mortgagee's costs.2. The defendant appealed, and the learned First Class Subordinate Judge differed from the trial Court's findings as to certain items of the account and as to whether one particular parcel of the land mortgaged had been proved to have been in the mortgagee's possassion. He thereupon reversed the original decree and reminded the case for taking fresh accounts with reference to the observations in his judgment.3. It is from this order that the plaintiffs bring this present appeal. The quest...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Koya Hansji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR964; 17Ind.Cas.796
Batchelor, J.1. The facts in this case are these : The applicant is the servant of one Mahomedbhai Kasambhai, an inhabitant of Broach, who has a license to keep a gun. Mahomedbhai and the applicant left Broach and went to a neighbouring village called Dhantaria. From there Mahomedbhai returned to Broach leaving his gun behind him. He, therefore, sent the accused to bring back his gun from Dhantaria to Broach, and the accused brought it back. On his way through the city of Broach he was arrested by the police, and has been convicted under Section 19(e) of the Arms Act of going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13. Section 13 provides that no person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby. It is unfortunate in this case that the prosecution have not put in the licence granted to Mahomedbhai, for it may be that the particular terms of that document would be conclusive of the question before us; but in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lallubhai Jaychand Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR960; 17Ind.Cas.791
1. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the order made by the Magistrate in this case at the foot of the report made by the Police cannot be accepted as a sanction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. We may point out also that the Magistrate appears to have misunderstood the position in another respect in that the complaint made by Lallubhai Jaychand has up till this moment never been dismissed. We must, therefore, quash the commitment....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Keshav Narayan Manolkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR968; 17Ind.Cas.720
Batchelor, J.1. Three points have been taken by the learned Counsel who appealed to support this application in revision. The first is, that the Court below had no jurisdiction in the case, inasmuch as the present applicant was not a party or a witness in the proceeding before the lower Court. Having regard to Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code we are clear that no such condition is required. All that is required is that such an offence as is there referred to should be either committed before the Court or brought under its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding. That condition was satisfied in this case, and the circumstance that the present accused was neither a party nor a witness seems to us to be irrelevant under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. '2. Secondly, it was complained that the procedure adopted was irregular, inasmuch as the Civil Court was not authorized to issue a warrant for the arrest of the applicant. Even if this argument were good in law, we do ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vishnu Balkrishna Bam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR965; 17Ind.Cas.785
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision made to us by the Government of Bombay, and the accused was convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate ordered that the sentence was ' to take effect from the date of expiry of the accused's present sentence.' That phrase, as explained in the warrant, meant ' the sentence which the accused was undergoing for failing to find security for good behaviour under Section 123, Criminal Procedure Code.'2. The whole question before us is whether the Magistrate was entitled to defer the sentence in regard to the theft until after the expiry of the imprisonment which the accused was suffering owing to his inability to find security. Upon this question we have unfortunately not had the advantage of argument from the accused's point of view. But the learned Government Pleader has laid the whole case before us and has drawn our attention to the various authorities on both si...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ardeshir Kavasji Karanjavalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR970; 17Ind.Cas.717
Batchelor, J.1. The applicant before us was, on the 24th of May last, summoned to attend on the 5th of June following before the Sub-Registrar in connection with the proposed registration of an agreement which had been entered into between the applicant and one Dinshaji. The applicant did not attend, and the agreement was registered as against Dinshaji only. On the 3rd of July Dinshaji appealed to the District Registrar praying that the agreement should be registered as against the applicant also. On the 11th of July the District Registrar issued a summons to the applicant to attend on the 19th of July at 11 o'clock in the morning. The applicant did not so attend ; but learning later in the day that the District Registrar had, in consequence of his absence, made an order against him at about 3-30 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon he sought to see the District Registrar. It would appear that the District Registrar saw him, but declined to modify the order already made. That order was an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatram Kundunmal Vs. Nagindas Ranchhoddas Shroff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR333; 19Ind.Cas.789
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues as holder in due course to recover from the defendants the maker and the first holder of a promissory-note payable thirty days after sight, made on the 20th of March I9:12. A decree has been already obtained against the first defendant Ramkisson who was the first holder. The plaintiff new sues the maker Nagindas Ranchhoddas on his note.2. The defence is that Ramkisson obtained the note for unlawful consideration and therefore it lies upon the plaintiff to prove that he gave consideration for it before he can enforce his remedies as a holder in due course.3. The fist question to be answered, then, is whether as (Jetwfcen Nagindas Ranchhoddas and Ramkisson the latter sxtorted the note of the 20th of March from the former so that in law whatever consideration might be said to have been given for it was an unlawful consideration. Upon this point share is (only the evidence of the defendant Nagindas himself. His story m that inconsequence of a suit against hi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dhuramsi Morarji Goculdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1031; 17Ind.Cas.730
Dinshaw D. Davar, Kt., J.1. Mr. Dhuramsi Morarji Goculdas, a very well-known and wealthy merchant of Bombay, died on the 13th of May 1912. He left him surviving a widow and three sons. During his lifetime he was in possession and management of a very large estate consisting both of inoveable and immoveable properties.2. On the 4th of April 1902 Mr. Dhuramsi executed a will which was prepared in the office of Messrs. Craigie Lynch and Owen and the will is duly attested by Mr. Craigie and his clerk. By this will he appointed Sir Narayan Ganesh Chandavarkar and Messrs. Tribhowandas Varjiwandas, Bhagwandas Narotamdas, Gopaldas Liladhar and Pritamlal Dhirajlal, the executors and trustees thereof. On the 10th of August 1903 Mr. Dhuramsi executed a codicil whereby he revoked the appointment of Gopaldas Liladhar and in his place substituted his brother Mr. Narotam Morarji Goculdas as the executor and trustee of his will and in all other respects he confirmed the said will by the codicil. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Behram Jung Vs. Haji Sultanali Shustry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1106; 17Ind.Cas.739
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case it appears that a suit was filed on-line Original Side of the Court by the present appellant who was known at the time to be a resident in Hyderabad without immoveable property in British India. The suit was contested and occupied eight days in the hearing. The defendant, however, made no application for security for costs before or at the hearing of the suit in the Original Court.2. Now that the appellant has filed an appeal and has deposited the prescribed amount according to the rules of this Court, viz., Rs. 500, as security for costs of the appeal, and within a fortnight of the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, the respondent gives notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not deposit in Court Rs. 7,500, as security for both the costs of the appeal and the costs in the lower Court.3. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the case is governed by Order XLI, Rule 10, and that as the appellant is residing out of Brit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »