Mumbai Court March 1914 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: Punamchand Maneklal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom138; (1914)16BOMLR446
Heaton, J.1. The applicant in this case is a person against whom a complaint has been made of offences under Sections 177, 193, 196, 199 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be observed that these are all offences which are included in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They all arose out of what the applicant is supposed to have done in connection with proceedings before an Income-tax Collector. Now undoubtedly an Income-tax Collector is a public servant, and as to the offence under Section 177 his sanction would be required under Clause (a) of Section 195 and what appears to be a sanction was in fact given by the Income-tax Collector. But it is now spent, or rather was spent before this complaint was made, because the complaint was made much more than six months after the sanction had been given. So far then it appears that as regards Section 177 these proceedings are not lawful in their inception and should be set aside. As regards the other Sections 193, 196, 199 and ...
R.D. Sethna Vs. Grace Edith Hemmingway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom286; (1914)16BOMLR534
Macleod, J.1. Charles Andrew Wakeford, an European inhabitant of Bombay, died there on the 18th October 1912 at the age of 82 or 84, unmarried He left him surviving as his next-of-kin ten grand-nephews and nieces : four-the children of his predeceased niece Jane Elizabeth Williams: and six-the children of his predeceased nephew Edmund Charles Harrison. The plaintiff, one of the daughters of the above-mentioned Jane Elizabeth Williams, applied to this Court for letters of administration; but before they were granted she filed this suit against the defendant Wilmot Harrison, the son of the abovementioned Edmund Charles Harrison, for a declaration that a sum of Rs. 10,000 deposited at the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank formed part of the estate of the deceased, and for such other reliefs as might enable her to get in the said amount.2. The deceased was a Government pensioner and in addition to his pension was the owner of the deposit of Rs. 10,500 at the Hongkong Bank which fell due on the 7t...
In Re: Punam Chand Manek Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.333
ORDERHeaton, J.1. The applicant in this case is a person against whom a complaint has been made of offences under Sections 177, 193, 196, 199 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be observed that these are all offences, which are included in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They all arose out of what the applicant is supposed to have done in connection with proceedings before an Income-tax Collector. Now undoubtedly an Income-tax Collector is a public servant and as to the offence under Section 177, his sanction would be required under Clause (a) of Section 195, and what appears to be a sanction was in fact given by the Income-tax Collector, But it is now spent, or rather was spent before this complaint was made because the complaint was made much more than six months after the sanction had been given. So far then it appears that as regrads Section 177 these proceedings are not lawful in their inception and should be set aside. As regards the other Sections 193, 196, 19...
Musammat Amir Begam Vs. Khwaja Saiyed Badr-ud-dIn Husaini
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR413
Parmoor, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh dated 15th August 1911, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow passed by him upon an application by respondent I for the filing of an award.2. On the 6th May 1909, one Khwaja Faridud-in Husain (hereinafter called the testator) died at Lucknow, leaving considerable property, and had as heirs, according to Mahommedan law, a full sister (the appellant herein), two step-brothers, respondents 2 and 3, two step-sisters, respondents 4 and 5, and a widow respondent 6. Shortly before his death, the testator made a will by which he appointed respondent I his executor, and, as he was entitled to do by Mahommedan law, bequeathed him one-third of his property. After the death of the testator disputes arose between the parties interested, and litigation was commenced. On the 6th August 1909, the matters in dispute were referred to the sole arbitration of Munshi Sakhawat Ali under a submiss...
In Re: the Arbitration Between the Bombay Gas Company Ltd. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom303; (1914)16BOMLR964
Davar, J.1. In the special case submitted to us by the Arbitrators there are two questions for our consideration. In our opinion the first question referred must be answered in the affirmative. Large powers are conferred upon licensees under the Act, but these are accompanied by certain obligations. Thus under Section 19 of the Act of 1910, the licensee is under the obligation of causing as little damage, detriment or inconvenience as may be in exercise of the powers conferred upon him ' and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by anyone employed by him.' The question is thus worded :-'Whether upon a true construction of Act IX of 1910 the damage claimed to have been suffered by the Gas Company is the subject of compensation under Section 19 of the said Act?' Clearly it is. For the damage claimed to have been suffered lies in the Gas Company having been deprived of access to its own property by acts done by the Supply Company in the e...
Raoji Keshav Deshmukh Vs. Krishnarao Anandrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom111(1); (1914)16BOMLR516; 25Ind.Cas.369
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We cannot say that as a matter of law there was sufficient cause for extending the time under Section 5, and we do not think there was any objection to the learned Judge entertaining the question after he had provisionally admitted the appeal to the file in the absence of the respondent. We are of opinion that this is a second appeal and not a first appeal, because it is an appeal from a decree of an appellate Court. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Velchand Chhaganlal Shah Vs. Lieut. R.C.C. Liston
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom123(2); (1914)16BOMLR517; 25Ind.Cas.371
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge Mr. Mohile has disregarded a circular of this Court and allowed a most transparent abuse of judicial process. A money-lender obtains from an Officer at Aurangabad a promissory note for Rs. 4, 931, payable in Ahmedabad or in Baroda, with interest, dated the 9th of July 1913, and under date the 11th of July two other documents are obtained from the Officer, one in the form of a reference to arbitration whereby the Officer and the money-lender agree to refer the matter of money-dealings between them to Bhailal Nandlal, Pleader of Ahmedabad, and nominate him arbitrator to settle the accounts and pass a judgment against the Officer in favour of the money-lender on the strength of the promissory-note of the 9th of July. The other document is a Vakilpatra by the Officer appointing Velchand Umedchand of Ahmedabad as his pleader to authorize him to appear in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad and admit the awar...
Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri Vs. Srimati Hari Dasi Debi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR400
Moulton, J.1. In this appeal the appellant Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri is the plaintiff in the action which was commenced by a plaint filed on the 16th September 1905. The claim of the plaintiff was based on a mortgage decree dated 28th July 1905, granted in a civil suit in the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, acting under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. That mortgage decree purported to enforce an English mortgage of the 23rd September 1895 executed by the pro forma defendant Mani Mohan Roy in favour of the plaintiff of certain properties, among which was an eight anna share of lands known as Mahal Gumokpota. The object of the present suit is to obtain a declaration that the female defendant. Hari Dasi Debi acquired no right of ownership or possession in that property by virtue of an auction purchase made by her on the 23rd of November 1904. It is therefore brought to establish the title of the plaintiff to those lands as being lands charged under his mortg...
Tayabali Gulam HuseIn Vs. Atmaram Sakharam Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom299; (1914)16BOMLR520; 25Ind.Cas.375
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In execution of a decree in Suit 689 of 1904 against Baba Ismail, a debt of Rs. 1,023, alleged to be due to the judgment-debtor by the firm of Tyaballi Gulam Hussein, the present defendants, was attached by the judgment-creditor, the present plaintiff, under Section 268 of the Code of 1882. The garnishees received notice to bring into Court the amount of the alleged debt, but as they disputed their liability they objected to the attachment and the judgment-creditor having put in an answer they gave evidence -before the executing Court to prove that they in fact owed nothing to the judgment-debtor as, although Rs. 594 were due by them to the judgment-debtor's Chalisgaon shop, Rs. 676 was due to them by the judgment-debtor's Pachora shop. This evidence was given on the 4th of September 1905 and thereafter on the same day the plaintiff applied for sale of the debt of Rs. 594. The executing Court then ordered that this debt should be - sold. On the sale it was purc...
Chunilal Parvatishankar Vs. Bai Samrath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR366
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated the 20th July 1910, reversing a decree of the Court of the District Judge, Surat, dated the 27th August 1908, which had affirmed with modifications a decree of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Surat, dated the 4th February 1907.2. The only question for determination in the appeal relates to the construction of a will dated the 20th August 1899, made by a Hindu named Parvatishankar Durgashankar. He was a resident of Surat in the Bombay Presidency; and it may be at once stated that it was admitted by both parties at their Lordships' Bar that the Hindu Wills Act, Chapter XX f, of the year 1870, did not apply to this case, which falls to be determined not by the law operative within the territories subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay. It may well be that the sections of tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »