Mumbai Court October 1915 Judgments
Murlidhar Narayan Gujarati Vs. Vishnudas Balmukandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.749
Shah, J.1. Several questions of law have been argued in this appeal, but it is necessary only to decide one of them as it is sufficient to dispose of the appeal.2. The facts connected with that point are briefly these: The suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, was filed on the 4th of June 1907 on a mortgage, dated the 29th of April 1897. The mortgagee sought to enforce his mortgage claim by sale of the mortgaged property. A preliminary decree was passed on the 30th of June 1910 as contemplated by Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, ordering, among other things, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the mortgage amount within six mouths to the plaintiff and in default directing a sale of the mortgaged property. The defendants Nos. 1. and 2 failed to pay the amount, and a final decree for sale was made on the 15th of March 1912, apparently as contemplated by Rule 5 of the same Order. The present appellant, who is defendant No. 1, had not appealed against the decree of ...
Tag this Judgment!Boggiano and Co. Vs. the Arab Steamers Co. Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom265; (1916)ILR40Bom529
Macleod, J.1. The defendant Steamer Company entered into an agreement, on the 1st April 1915, with the firm of Chhagandas & Co. whereby the latter chartered the steamer Hejaz for a voyage, Bombay to Naples, Genoa and or Marseilles, any two discharging ports at charterer's option. On the 14th April, the Jeddah was substituted for the Hejaz. The plaintiffs procured from Chhagandas & Co. freight for 2,500 bales of cotton on the said steamer and were given the shipping orders which they presented to the defendants. The 2,500 bales were put on board the Jeddah and twenty-five bills of lading relating to them were issued by the defendants, who were paid Rs. 32,610-6-2 for freight. Owing, however, to the import of cotton into Genoa being prohibited by orders of Government, the Jeddah did not leave the harbour and the voyage had to be abandoned. Negotiations were entered into with the various shippers of cotton, which are set out in the correspondence-annexed to the pleadings, but eventually t...
Tag this Judgment!C. Boggiano and Co. Vs. the Arab Steamers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.536
Macleod, J.1. The defendant Steamer Company entered into an agreement, on the 1st April 1915, with the firm of Chhagandas and Company whereby the latter chartered the steamer 'Hejaz' for a voyage, Bombay to Naples, Genoa and or Marseilles, any two discharging ports at charterer's option. On the 14th April, the 'Jeddah' was substituted for the 'Hejaz.' The plaintiffs procured from Chhagandas and Company freight for 2,500 bales of cotton on the said steamer and were given the shipping orders which they presented to the defendants. The 2,500 bales were put on board the 'Jeddah' and twenty-five bills of lading relating to them were issued by the defendants, who were paid Rs. 32,610-6-2 for freight. Owing, however, to the import of cotton into Genoa being prohibited by orders of Government, the 'Jeddah' did not leave the harbour and the voyage had to be abandoned. Negotiations were entered info with the various shippers of cotton, which are set out in the correspondence annexed to the plead...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Daji Yesaba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1072
Batchelor, J.1. The appellants before us, who are five in number, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Belgaum of the offence of murder. The conviction followed upon the unanimous verdict of the Jury.2. Of the five accused persons before the Sessions Court, Nos. 3 and 4, Daji bin Yesaba and Bhima bin Shidlinga, were sentenced to death, that sentence being subject to this Court's confirmation. The other three accused were sentenced to transportation for life.3. It appears to be the practice of this Court that where a prisoner has been sentenced to death, even though the conviction was had on the unanimous verdict of a Jury, the whole case is reopened before the High Court both on matters of fact as well as on matters of law. In deference to that practice we have allowed Mr. Sirur, for the accused Nos. 3 and 4, to address us on all matters of evidence in the appeals. I desire, however, to reserve my own opinion as to the correctness of the practice to which I have alluded, sho...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nathu Rewa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1074
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by one Nathu Rewa from a conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of the offence of robbery committed between sunset and sunrise on the highway under the 2nd part of Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The proceedings leading up to this conviction are of an unusual character. The accused was originally committed to the Court of Session by the Magistrate under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and, on the 30th of July, the trial of the accused began before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Public Prosecutor, however, added charges under Sections 214 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code over and above the charge under Section 392. On the three charges the trial proceeded up to the point where the assessors gave their opinion. The assessors' opinions having been recorded, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reserved judgment. When, however, he came to write his judgment, he found himself to be of opinion that the trial had b...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Devendra Shivapa Limbenavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1085
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision which is made to us in the following circumstances.2. The two accused persons were convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Parasgad of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. From that conviction they appealed to the District Magistrate, and that learned Magistrate, though he took a careful note of the arguments addressed to him by the pleaders on both sides, passed his final order in the following words:- 'The appeal is dismissed under Section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code.' It seems to us that that order cannot be sustained. Admittedly it was made under Section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that is to say, the appeal was dismissed not summarily, but after notice given under Section 422. That being so, under Section 424 it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to deliver a judgment which should fulfil the conditions laid down in Section 367; in other words, the judgment must contain the po...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Nilkant Pusalkar Vs. Vinayak Keshav Pusalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom262; (1916)ILR40Bom329
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff to establish his right to attach and sell the interest of the defendant (amounting to one-fourth of an equity of redemption) in execution of a Small Cause Court decree passed on an instrument of loan signed by the judgment-debtor alone who was a brother and co-parcener of the present defendant. The money is held to have been borrowed for the benefit of all the brothers. The present defendant was not a party to the suit in the Small Cause Court.2. The question now to be decided is unembarrassed by the interest of any innocent Court-sale purchaser. It is simply whether the unencumbered interest of a Hindu can be attached and sold in execution to satisfy a money decree obtained against his brother in a suit to which the objector was no party.3. It may be conceded that on the findings of the lower Court the present defendant was a principal disclosed or undisclosed of the borrower and the latter as an agent would have an agent's rig...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Valad Khushal Khadake Vs. Bahinibai Murd Krishna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom351
Batchelor, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff. His suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that it was incompetent under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The suit was brought on a sale deed of October 1910 passed in the plaintiff's favour by the 1st defendant Bahini. Bahini and Tapi were the daughters of one Tukaram Narayan who died in 1901, leaving his widow Bhagirthi and the two daughters I have named. In the year 1910 Suit No. 270 of that year was brought by Bahini, the present 1st defendant, against her sister Tapi, the present 2nd defendant, and Zagdu, the present 4th defendant, for possession of Survey No. 324 which had been sold to Zagdu in January 1906 by Bhagirthi. In the same month, January 1906, but a few days earlier, Bhagirthi had sold Survey Nos. 403 and 404 to the present 3rd defendant, Dagdu. It is found as a fact that Dagdu and Zagdu and the 3rd brother Ukhardu, defendant No. 5, are joint in estate. The present suit by Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmam Nilkant Pusalkar Vs. Vinayak Keshav Pusalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.956
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff to establish his right to attach and sell the interest of the defendant (amounting to 1/4th of an equity of redemption) in execution of a Small Cause Court decree passed on an instrument of loan signed by the judgment-debtor alone, who was a brother and co-parcener of the present defendant. The money is held to have been borrowed for the benefit of all the brothers. The present defendant was not a party to the suit in the Small Cause Court.2. The question now to be decided is unembarrassed by the interest of any innocent Court-sale purchaser. It is simply whether the unencumbered interest of a Hindu can be attached and sold in execution to satisfy a money-decree obtained against his brother in a suit to which the objector was no party.3. It may be conceded that on the findings of the lower Court the present defendant was a principal disclosed or undisclosed of the borrower and the latter as an agent would have an agent's rights ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Manilal Mangalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1080
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the applicant, Manilal Mangalji, has been convicted by the learned Third Presidency Magistrate of managing or assisting in conducting the business of a common gaming house under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act IV of 1887, and has been sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The only point of law urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that a certain green book, in which were recorded entries of the bets made by those frequenting the room managed by the applicant, is not an instrument of gaming within the definition of that term in Section 3 of the Act. Unfortunately, however, for this argument, a Bench of this Court has decided against it in the case of Emperor v. Lakhamsi (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 1091 which followed the decision in King-Emperor v. Tribhowandas (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 271; I.L.R. 26 Bom. 533 where the judgment of Mr. Justice Fulton was presumably specially relied upon. We are bound by the decision in Emperor v. L...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »