Mumbai Court September 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: Manku Bala Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom202(1); (1914)16BOMLR946
1. We desire to point out to the District Registrar in this case that he has no jurisdiction to make an order under Section 476, because, as provided in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the District Registrar is not a 'Court' and Section 476 is so intimately connected with Section 195 and is designed to serve a purpose so similar to that served by Section 195 that we cannot doubt that what is declared not to be a ' Court ' for the purpose of Section 195 is also not a Court for the purpose of Section 476. We do not, however, interfere with the order for this reason; that precisely the same practical result would be brought about by the presentation of a complaint of the offence to a Magistrate who has jurisdiction to inquire into it or by the District Registrar as a Magistrate proceeding under Sub-section (1) Clause (c), of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code....
In Re: Sangappa Gadigeppa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom230; (1914)16BOMLR947
Heaton, J.1. This is one of five cases in which the Collector what he considers a sanction in each case for the prosecution of certain persons for giving false evidence. The 1914 persons against whom these assumed sanctions were given appealed to the District Judge, and he held that in accordance with the terms of Clause 7 of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appeal did lie to his Court. That view has not been contested here. The District Judge, however, also held that the writing given and signed by the Collector was not a sanction, but was a complaint, and that he had no power to interfere. Against these five orders, the applicants have come to us in revision.2. Except in one point I am unable to understand why these documents are not to be regarded as sanctions. In terms they are most definitely sanctions. They fulfil, so far as I can see, every single requirement of Section 195. But apparently it has been held elsewhere that a sanction presupposes an application. That ...
Emperor Vs. Bhau Savalaram Kotasthane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR943
Heaton, J.1. In this case we set aside the order requiring security from the applicant.2. We do this in revision. It is said, and no doubt correctly said, that we seldom interfere in these matters in revision. But the circumstances here are very exceptional. The applicant was sent to jail whilst the inquiry was in progress, an illegal thing and one which, on the face of it, prejudices his interests in the inquiry. Therefore, we cannot but say in this case that the inquiry has not been a fair one. It has not keen conducted with that regard for the rights and privileges of the person against whom the proceedings were taken which Emperor our law requires.3. On the merits of the case I only want to say one thing. There is evidence of general reputation. It appears, however, that the applicant was Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Municipality of Vambori. Now when he came to be last appointed to that office, it ought to be evident, that at that time his general reputation hardly cou...
Amirbibi Vs. Azizabibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom109(2); (1914)16BOMLR977
Macleod, J.1. One Shaik Abdulla bin Shaik Ebrahim, a Sunni Mahomedan, died at Bombay on or about the 14th of August 1906 leaving him surviving as his only heirs according to Mahomedan law two daughters Amirbibi and Azizabibi. By a deed-poll dated the 23rd March 1901 the said Shaik Abdulla declared in effect that he held certain property belonging to him in Huzaria Street in Wakf as a Mutavali or trustee upon the trusts following, viz:-(a Out of the net rents of the said property 'to feed five Fakirs every Friday night, to pay for reading the Koran every month and for Fatiha ceremonies in the months of Mohram, Rabinlakhar, Rajab and Ramzan and for offering every month oil two and a half seers for lighting the Masjid situated in Huzaria Street.(b) To pay the balance of the said rents to his daughters and any other child that might thereafter be born to the settlor in equal shares for their maintenance and the maintenance of their children therein named, and after the death of his daughte...
Emperor Vs. Ismail Alibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR934
Heaton, J.1. This is an appeal against a conviction for using criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duties. The offence consists in this that the two accused succeeded in preventing the arrest of a person who was believed to be taking part in traffic in cocaine. The two accused were sentenced and we are dealing with the appeal of one of them.2. On the evidence, I think, the Magistrate was right in holding that the offence was committed. The chief question argued is this: Is a previous conviction one of the matters which a Court is permitted to consider in imposing sentence 1 The imposing of sentence is, within the wide limits allowed by the law, a matter of discretion; it is not a matter of proof. That is it is a matter within the sphere not of evidence but of penology. Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act is a part of the law of evidence, not a part of the penal law. It regulates what is relevant for the purpose of proof at the enquiry or trial, not what ...
Antaji Vasudev Kelkar Vs. Vinayak Keshav Bhise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom299; (1915)17BOMLR153
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The questions which have been argued in this appeal are questions raised by the defendant-appellant. He contends, first, that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation : secondly, that it is barred by the law of res judicata; and, thirdly, that the suit cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court unless a certificate under Section 6 of the Pensions Act is produced. We have heard arguments upon all these points.2. The first question which logically arises is whether the objection under the Pensions Act is good or not. We are of opinion that it is a good objection. The suit relates to a definite share in an Inam which consisted in the enjoyment by the Inamdars of 2/3rds of the revenue of a certain village. The plaintiff contended that he was entitled to the portion of the revenue in dispute between him and the defendant. The defendant contended that he was entitled, for various reasons, to receive that portion of the revenue from Government as a transferee of ...
Emperor Vs. Ismail Ali Bhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom326
Heaton, J.1. This is an appeal against a conviction for using criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duties. The offence consists in this that the two accused succeeded in preventing the arrest of a person who was believed to be taking part in traffic in cocaine. The two accused were sentenced and we are dealing with the appeal of one of them.2. On the evidence, I think, the Magistrate was right in holding that the offence was committed. The chief question argued is this: is a previous conviction one of the matters which a Court is permitted to consider in imposing sentence? The imposing of sentence is, within the wide limits allowed by the law, a matter of discretion; it is not matter of proof. That is, it is a matter within the sphere not of evidence but of penology. Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act is a part of the Law of Evidence, not a part of the penal law. It regulates what is relevant for the purpose of proof at the enquiry or trial, not what is...
Satvaji Balajirao Deshmukh Vs. Sakharlal Atmaramshet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom132; (1914)16BOMLR778
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The suit in relation to which the execution proceedings now in question have been taken was brought by the plaintiff against the fist six defendants as vendors who denied his title as purchaser and against the 7th defendant as mortgagee from the other defendants to enforce his purchase against the vendors and to redeem the mortgage.2. The original Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff's title as purchaser was not established as he had not paid the full purchase money and was not ready and willing to perform his contract. The first appeal Court, however, reverse the decree of the original Court and passed a decree that on the plaintiff paying defendants 1 to 6 the sum of Rs. 203-1-8 and paying all cost in the suit within six months from the date of the decree he should be put in possession of the property and should then pay defendant 7 the sum of Rs. 997-8-0 found due on the mortgage with further interest from the date of recovering possession to ...
Ramdas Gopaldas Sadhu Vs. Baldevdas Kaushalyadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom116; (1914)16BOMLR757
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession from the 1st defendant of certain temple properties at Dakore, Claiming to be the Pitrai Chela of the deceased Bajrangdas who was a Mahant of the Dakore temple. The first defendant disputed his claim and called upon the plaintiff to prove the claim he asserted. The parties, it is not disputed, are Bairagis belonging to the sect of Vaishnavas of the Ramanandi class. It his been laid down in Ram Dass Byragee v. Gunga Dass (1868) 8 Agra 295 that in that class of Bairagis, on the demise of the superior Math, when there is no Chela to succeed, the heads, of the Maths ordinarly elect a successor from pupils of some other teacher. (Compare replies 39 and 40, relating to Bairagis in Burrodaile's Caste and Customs in Gujarat). That has not been done in the present case, nor has the plaintiff proved the existence of any special custom relating to the Dakore Math. It is contended on his behalf that Bajrangdas under whom he claims w...
Bhavanishankar Bhaishankar Vyas Vs. the Talukdari Settlement Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR766
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We do not think it necessary in this case to call upon the learned pleader who appears for the Talukdari Settlement Officer in support of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, for, although, as at present advised, we think that the notification purporting to have been issued under Section 29 B of the Gujarat Talukdars Act was not a sufficient reference to the Talukdar-debtor and his property to extinguish the claim of the plaintiff, if the claim was not submitted under that section the plaintiff's suit must fail because he has not given notice as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The cause of action in the present case is the process initiated by the Talukdari Settlement Officer to enforce the eviction of the plaintiff from the property in question Section 79A of the Land Revenue Code provides that:-Any person unauthorisedly occupying, or wrongly in possession of any land, which he uses or occupies in contravention of any of the provis...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »