Mumbai Court January 1915 Judgments
In Re: Dyawappa Basgunda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR382
Heaton, J.1. We have been applied to in this case to interfere in our revisional jurisdiction with what purports to be an order made under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The view of the case that I take is that no final order has been made under Section 145. The preliminary order was made, the statements of the parties as required by Clause 4 of the section were put in, but thereafter there was no oral examination of the parties or taking of evidence. There was no decision as required by Clause 6, nor was there a declaration as required by that clause. There was simply an order that a person was 'not to obstruct, etc.' Where, as here, all the most essential things that go to the making of the order were absent, I can only say that I regard the order made as not a final order under the section.2. The position, therefore, stands thus: if there is still a danger of a breach of the peace, the Magistrate must complete the proceedings as required by Section 145 and make a proper...
Tag this Judgment!Bharma Shidappa Pujari Vs. Bhamagavda Shivagavda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom21; (1915)17BOMLR271
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Applying the Full Bench ruling in Chanmalswami v. Gangadharappa : AIR1914Bom149 , we hold that a decision that a matter is not res judicata, and that, therefore, the trial can proceed is not a preliminary decree from which an appeal will lie at this stage. We dismiss both the appeals. Costs costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Maharajah Sir Ravaneswar Prasad Singh Bahadur Vs. Baijnath Ram Goenka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR442
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bengal, dated the Ist of May 1907, and the question for determination relates to the validity of a sale for arrears of revenue held under Act XI of 1859 of a share of an estate called Mahal Bisthazari situated in the district of Monghyr.2. The case offers an illustration of the extreme complexity of the land-system existing in Bengal. A 15 annas 6 dams share of Mahal Bisthazari seems to have been in existence as an independent fiscal unit for a considerable time. It includes 360 villages, and in the Collector's register is entered as bearing Touzih No. 336, which marks its position as a separate revenue paying estate.3. As is usually the case in Bengal and elsewhere in India, a large number of persons possess proprietary rights in this mahal; they own specific shares, some in one village only, others in several villages. Ordinarily the whole estate held in this wise is liable to be put up for sale for def...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Musaji Saleji Vs. Hashim Ebrahim Saleji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR432
Sumner, J.1. This was an action to have partnership accounts taken, and for that purpose to have various matters decided by the Court. Three questions only were raised before their Lordships on the present appeal.2. The circumstances raising the first question were as follows. The membership of the firm was in dispute. Certain persons were alleged, on one side, to have been partners, and, on the other, to have been only employees remunerated by a share of annual profits. The suit was begun on 30th June 1908, and on 30th August 1909 the Trial Judge, Fletcher J., by his formal adjudication (to use a neutral term) 'declared' that the partnership in question was dissolved as from 1st July 1907, and then ' ordered and decreed ' that-It is referred to the assistant referee of this Court to take the following account and to make the following enquiries, that is to say:-1. To enquire who were the partners who were entitled to share in the assets and goodwill of the said partnership business;2....
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Balkrishna Deshpande Vs. Kashinath Narayan Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom99; (1915)17BOMLR372
Shah, J.1. Two questions of law have been argued in this appeal-one relating to the validity of an adoption, the other relating to estoppel. The facts which give rise to the question of adoption are not in dispute now and may be briefly stated. One Yeshwant died leaving four sons-Venkatesh by one wife, and Ganpat, Madhav and Narayan by another wife. Venkatesh died many years ago after adopting his step-brother, Narayan. Narayan died leaving a son-Kashinath, who was the defendant in the trial Court and is the respondent here. There was a division among the brothers, whether during or after the life-time of Venkatesh does not appear to be clear and is not material. Ganpat died sonless, leaving a widow, who died in 1903. Madhav had a son, Balkrishna, who died leaving a son Gajanan, who was the plaintiff in the Court below and is the appellant here. The dispute relates to Ganpat's share in a certain allowance, which, the plaintiff says, he is entitled to share equally with the defendant, t...
Tag this Judgment!The Damodar Moholal Ginning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Naginda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom66(1); (1915)17BOMLR207
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The opponent in November 1913 applied by Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 1913 to the District Judge of Ahmedabad for an order that he should be registered as a share-holder in the Damodar Moholal Ginning and Manufacturing Company, and his application was allowed with costs. The pleader for the opponent, thereafter, presented a bill of costs prepared as if it were an attorney's bill on the Original Side of the High Court, and that bill has been referred by the District Judge to the Taxing Master of his Court for taxation, the learned District Judge being of opinion that the High Court's Rules had authorized a charging of costs of pleaders at the rates specified by Rule 704 in respect of all proceedings under the Indian Companies Act. It has been pointed out to us by the pleader for the applicant-Company that the power of the High Court to make rules specially relating to Company-applications is conferred by Section 254 of the Indian Companies Act (VI of 188...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramava Channappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom297; (1915)17BOMLR217
Heaton, J.1. In this case there is no doubt whatever about certain facts. One Chenappa died shortly after eating food prepared by his wife. It was found that he had died of arsenic poisoning. Then there is really no substantial doubt about these further circumstances: that the poison was given to Chenappa's wife by her mother and that she mixed it with the food she gave to her husband. The wife was charged with the murder of her husband and her mother was charged with abetting the murder.2. The case was tried by a Jury in Belgaum. In the course of his charge to the Jury, the Judge pointed out that although there was no separate charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, it was open to the Jury to find a verdict of 'guilty' of an offence under Section 304-A and an acquittal under the charge of murder. With that direction in their minds the Jury came to the conclusion by a majority of three to two that the women were not guilty of any offence whatever. The Judge found himself u...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Ramkrishna Vs. Prahlad Ramkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom85; (1915)17BOMLR361
Shah, J.1. The interesting question of Hindu law argued in this appeal arises out of the following facts :-One Sitaram died leaving a son Rarnkrishna and a widow Gangabai, the step-mother of Rarnkrishna. Ramkrishna died in 1892 leaving three sons Vithal, Vishnu and Pandharinath by his first wife, who is dead, and two sons-Prahlad and Dinanath by his second wife, Bai Parvati, who is alive. Prahlad and Dinanath with their mother Parvati sued the other three sons of Ramkrishna for a partition of the family estate. Among other things the defendants urged that Gangabai-their grand-mother-was entitled to a share of the property, that she was a necessary party to the suit and that the property in suit was acquired by Sitaram.2. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia held that the grand-mother was not entitled to any share in the property according to Hindu law, and accordingly disallowed the objection. He decided the other issues in the suit, and passed a decree for the partition...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›