Mumbai Court June 1913 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Hari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR702; 20Ind.Cas.620
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged in the Court of the First Class Magistrate Sholapur as follows:-That he on or about the 9th day of August 1912 being on duty at Kadabgaon station between 19 o'clock and 22 o'clock endangered the safety of passengers travelling in 16 up from Borati by disobeying General Rule No. 99(c) and No. 100 of the General Rules for all open lines of Railways sanctioned under Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act of 1890 and published under Notification No. 183, dated the 8th September 1906, by the Governor General in Council by giving permission to approach to 16 up at J Jorati and subsequently fouling the main line by carrying on shunting on the main line and on to the siding ; and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.2. The facts briefly are that the accused who was Station Master at Kadabgaon at about 7-45 on the night of the 9th of August 1912 gave orders to the driver of goods train No. 174 ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balkrishna Vaman Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR708; 20Ind.Cas.998
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay, and the appeal arises in the following circumstances :-One Dattatraya Anant Kulkarni was an officiating Kulkarni of a certain village between February 1908 and September 1911. Between nth April and 25th July 1911 he collected a sum of Rs. 189 from the village rayats for certain irrigation cesses. Receipts were given by Dattatraya Anant to the paying rayats, but in fact Dattatraya misappropriated these moneys. He has been on his own trial convicted on his plea of guilty. He admits his guilt also when examined as a witness in the trial of this respondent.2. In September 1911 this Dattatraya Anant was transferred to another village. He handed over charge to one Dattatraya Hari, who is a witness in the respondent's case. He did not hand over the account books and other papers. In December 1911 the present respondent Balkrishna Vaman, who was a petition-writer known to Dattatraya Anant, learnt that the rayats, whose money had be...
Tag this Judgment!Puttangowda Mallangowda Patil Vs. Nilkanth Kalo Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR773; 20Ind.Cas.974
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We are of opinion that the authorities rightly decide that a Court of Small Causes can entertain a suit, the principal purpose of which is to determine a right to immoveable property, provided the suit in form does not ask for this relief but for payment of a sura of money, and that under the circumstances of this particular case the suit was cognizable b] a Court of Small Causes. Section 15 of Act IX of 1887 Provides that subject to the exceptions specified in the second Schedule of the Act, and to the provisions of any other enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature, c which the value does not exceed Rs. 500, shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, The exceptions contained in the second Schedule are numerous and specific, and, in Out opinion, the Court in Bapuji Raghunath v. Kuvarji Edulji Umrigar I.L.R(1890) Bom. 400 was right in holding that those exception could only refer to suits brought expressly for the purpose of obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kashibai Vs. Shidappa Anapa Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR823
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge of Athni after the case of both the plaintiff and the defendant was closed and all their witnesses had been examined, gave time to the plaintiff from the 13th to the 27th of September to adduce documents to counteract the effect of documents filed on the 13th by the defendant. Then on the 27th, on the application of the plaintiff, and the allegation that the documents had not yet been obtained, although no specific documents were mentioned, the learned Judge allowed the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same subject-matter on payment of the defendant's costs. The permission was given under Order XXIII, Rule 1, which enables the Court to give such permission if it is satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Having the grounds of the order before us, we are of o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balkrishna Waman Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom666
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay, and the appeal arises in the following circumstances:2. One Dattatraya Anant Kulkarni was an officiating kulkarni of a certain village between February 1908 and September 1911. Between 11th April and 25th July 1911 he collected a sum of Rs. 189 from the village rayats for certain irrigation cesses. Receipts were given by Dattatraya Anant to the paying rayats, but in fact Dattatraya misappropriated these moneys. He has been on his own trial convicted on his plea of guilty. He admits his guilt also when examined as a witness in the trial of this respondent.3. In September 1.911 this Dattatraya Anant was transferred to another village. He handed over charge to one Dattatraya Hari, who is a witness in the respondent's case. He did not hand over the account books and other papers. In December 1911 the present respondent Balkrishna Waman, who was a petition-writer known to Dattatraya Anant, learnt that the rayats, whose money had...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kashibai Widow of Shidlingapa Vs. Shidapa Annapa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom682
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge of Athni, after the case of both the plaintiff and the defendant was closed and all their witnesses had been examined, gave time to the plaintiff from the 13th to the 27th of September to adduce documents to counteract the effect of documents filed on the 13th by the defendant. Then on the 27th, on the application of the plaintiff and the allegation that the documents had not yet been obtained, although no specific documents were mentioned, the learned Judge allowed the plaintiff to with draw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same subject-matter on payment of the defendant's costs. The permission was given under Order XXIII, Rule 1, which enables the Court to give such permission if it is satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Having the grounds of the order before us, we are of ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sanalal Lalubhai and Gordhandas Keshavlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR694; 20Ind.Cas.613
Batchelor, J.1. In this case there are two appellants before us. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 213 of the Indian Penal Code with accepting the restitution of property in consideration of his screening a person from legal punishment for an offence, appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 214 with causing the restoration of property to a person in consideration of that person screening some person from legal punishment for an offence.2. For the purpose of compendious description, preserving verbal accuracy only in points which are now material, it may be said that both the appellants have been convicted of taking or offering the restitution of property in consideration of screening an offence. The material words of the Statute which occur in both the sections are that the giving or accepting of the restitution of property should be in consideration of the accused person concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Timmappa Devarabhatta Vs. Narsinh Timmaya Hebar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR794
Batchelor, J.1. The appellants before us were in the suit defendants 7 to 14, 16 and 17 to 19, and the facts upon which this appeal has to be decided are these:-2. On the 31st May 1887 the defendants' ancestor, Ganpaya, and two out of his six sons forming an undivided family mortgaged the property in suit to the plaintiffs' father. In J900 the mortgagee brought a suit upon his mortgage against Ganpaya, all his living sons and three grandsons. A decree was made in favour of the mortgagee for Rs. 1,561-2-0. Next, the property was put to sale and was purchased with permission by the plaintiffs acting through their agent, their pleader.3. The question before us is whether the present appellants' interests passed to the plaintiffs in this sale. Both the Courts below have answered this question in the affirmative on the grounds, first, that the original mortgage was made for the benefit of the whole joint family, and, secondly, that the present appellants, though not parties to the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Nanchand Gujar Vs. Narayan Hari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR836
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. This was a suit brought in July 1910 for arrears of rent falling due under registered leases the due dates being the 5th April 1905, 25th March 1906 and the 13th April 1907.2. If Article 110 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which specifically provides for suits for arrears of rent, applies the sue is barred. If, however, Article 116 is comprehensive enough to cover such a suit the claim is within time. The lower Court have followed a decision of Mr. Justice Burkitt at Allahabad Ram Narain v. Kamta Singh I.L.R. (1903) All. 138, and holding that Article and not 116 applies have dismissed the suit.3. If the matter were rest Integra we should take the same view as Mr. Justice Burkitt, but having regard to the long series 0 authorities to the contrary effect, and the fact that the Legislature in re-enacting and amending the Limitation Act in 1908 has made no alteration in the Article 116 which had been interpreted generally by the Indian High Courts in the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoje Mahadev Parab Vs. Gangabai Vithal Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR809
Batchelor, J.1. This appeal, which is preferred by the plaintiff in the original suit, arises in the following circumstances :-In 1902 the 1st defendant Gangabai kom Vithal obtained V decree for her maintenance against Ramchandra, Vinayak and others. The plaintiff is a purchaser, from some of these judgment-debtors, of two of the plots mentioned in the maintenance suit, but in this appeal we are concerned only with one of these two plots, namely, Survey No. 108 Falni Nos. 1t 2 and 4 and Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This purchase was made by the plaintiff in 1906. Prior to then no attachment or other proceeding had been taken out by the first defendant under her decree of 1902. In 1907, however, she applied for execution of her decree for maintenance. In 1910 this particular plot along with others was attached and sold, and was purchased by the third defendant.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the sale to him in 1906 was binding on the 1st and other defendants and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »