Mumbai Court April 1915 Judgments
Emperor Vs. a Goodhew
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR603
Beaman, J.1. The applicant has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of the offence under Section 83 of the Merchant Seamen Act and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and to forfeit two days' pay. He has applied to this Court and a rule was issued by Heaton and Shah JJ. We take it then that we are dealing with this case in revision. It was contended that the applicant had a right of regular appeal; but in view of what had already passed and the applicant's counsel being unable to support his contention by reference to any section in the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that this was not the view of Heaton and Shah JJ. and the present contention cannot be sustained.2. Now the material facts are that the applicant signed the usual articles of agreement with the Captain of the Steamship 'Arcadia' for a term of one year's service. In addition to the stereotyped form certain clauses were added under which inter alia the applicant agreed to accept a transfer from t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. A. Goodhew
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.137
1. The applicant has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of the offence under Section 53 of the Merchant Seamen Act and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and to forfeit two days' pay, He has applied to this Court and a Rule was issued by Heaton and Shah, JJ. We take it then that we are dealing with this case in revision. It was contended that the applicant had a right of regular appeal; but in view of what has already passed and the applicant's Counsel being unable to support his contention by reference to any section in the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that this was not the view of Heaton and Shah, JJ., and the present contention cannot be sustained.2. Now the material facts are that the applicant signed the usual articles of agreement with the Captain of the Steamship ' Arcadia ' for a term of one year's service. In addition to the stereotyped form certain clauses were added under which, inter alia, the applicant agreed to accept a transfer from that...
Tag this Judgment!Suleman Haji Usman Vs. Shaikh Ismail Shaikh Oosman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom88; (1915)17BOMLR625; 30Ind.Cas.17
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This was a suit brought in the name of the two plaintiffs, Suleman Haji Usman and Jusub Jan Mahomadi purporting to be disciples of a certain Pir for relief regarding an alleged Darga of the Pir Saheb said to be in the possession of the defendants, for a declaration that the Darga was the owner of all the moveable and immoveable property in the possession of the defendants; that the defendants were unfit to act as trustees; for a perpetual injunction against the defendants; and that the plaintiffs or other persons might be appointed trustees in their place, and put in possession of the property.2. Under the authority of a Government Resolution, the Collector of Thana was invested with the powers of the Advocate-General under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, and by virtue of Section 157 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, the powers conferred operate under the present Code in respect of Sections 91 and 92. We are here concerned with Section 92. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Janardan Kulkarni Vs. Arjun Barku Kunbi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom17; (1915)17BOMLR579
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff in the Mamlatdar's Court at Erandol in East Khandesh who sued for possession of certain lands under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The Mamlatdar of Erandol after recording evidence ordered possession to be given to the applicant. An application was then preferred purporting to be in revision under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act to the District Deputy Collector of East Khandesh who reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar of Erandol. The petitioner contends that the District Deputy Collector had no authority to act under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. That Act is Bombay Act II of 1906. Section 23 provides: 'There shall be no appeal from any order passed by a Mamlatdar under this Act. But the Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under this Act, and if he considers that any proceeding, finding or order in such suit is illegal or improper, may, after due notice to th...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State Vs. Bapuji Mahadev Govaikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom282; (1915)17BOMLR641
Basil Scott, C.J.1. It is unnecessary to restate the facts which are not disputed and are very clearly stated by the learned District Judge. He has allowed the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 1,793 which came into the hands of the East India Company in 1848 when the Satara Principality, on the death of the Maharajah Shahaji became part of the Bombay Presidency. The only issues raised in the lower Court were issues of limitation based upon Articles 14 and 120 and Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Judge being of opinion that the money was at most held by the defendant on an implied trust held that Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply to the case and that the plaintiffs' claim could only be decreed on the ground that it was within time under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. In our opinion, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed on the ground not only that their claim did not fall within Article 14 and would be within time if it fell within Article ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Bapuji Mahadeo Govaika ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom572
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. It is unnecessary to restate the facts which are not disputed and are very clearly stated by the learned District Judge. He has allowed the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 1,793 which came into the hands of the East India Company in 1848 when the Satara Principality on the death of the Maharajah Shahaji became part of the Bombay Presidency. The only issues raised in the lower Court were issues of limitation based upon Articles 14 and 120 and Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Judge being of opinion that the money was at most held by the defendant on an implied trust held that Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply to the case and that the plaintiffs' claim could only be decreed on the ground that it was within time under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. In our opinion the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed on the ground not only that their claim did not fall within Article 14 and would be within time if it fell within Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Janardan Kulkarni Vs. Arjun Walad Barku Kunbi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom552
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff in the Mamlatdar's Court at Krandol in East Khandesh who sued for possession of certain lands under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The Mamlatdar of Erandol after recording evidence ordered possession to be given to the applicant. An application was then preferred purporting to be in revision under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act to the District Deputy Collector of East Khandesh who reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar of Erandol. The petitioner contends that the District Deputy Collector had no authority to act under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. That Act is Bombay Act II of 1906. Section 23 provides: 'There shall be no appeal from any order passed, by a Mamlatdar under this Act. But the Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under this Act, and if he considers that any proceeding, finding or order in such suit is illegal or improper, may, after due notice...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›