Mumbai Court August 1915 Judgments
Manilal Gangadas Desai Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom197; (1915)17BOMLR1115; 33Ind.Cas.428
Batchelor, J.1. This was a suit filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council against twelve defendants. The 1st defendant was the Secretary and the 2nd defendant was the accounts clerk of the Kaira Municipality. The other defend ants were Councillors of that Municipality. The relief claimed was the recovery from the defendants of certain sums of money said to have been embezzled from the Municipality by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The learned District Judge of Ahmedabad gave the plaintiff a decree against the defendant-Councillors, but upon a technical ground refused to grant a decree against the Secretary and the accounts clerk, though he held them guilty of the embezzlements imputed to them. The present appeal is brought by the Municipal Councillors.3. The first point taken by the learned pleader for the appellants was by way of demurrer to the suit, it being contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue even on the facts as stated in the plaint. Now, the plaintiff'...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shankar Ramdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR890
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who convicted the accused Shankar Ram das under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and, the accused having admitted certain previous convictions, passed a sentence of eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment.2. We were compelled to call for the record and proceedings as the learned Magistrate's judgment did not disclose to us any reasons why the evidence for the prosecution was accepted as sufficient. While we certainly have no wish to impose upon the Presidency Magistrate any further burden than is imposed by the express terms of the Criminal Procedure Code, we think his attention should be drawn to the requirements of Clause (i) of Section 370 of the Code and to the decision in Natabar Ghose v. Provash Chandra Chatterjee I.L.R. (1900) Cal. 461 with which we agree. In the present case the learned Presidency Magistrate has written only: 'I convict the accused. I believe the evidence of the complainant and t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rama Dhan Powar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom140; (1915)17BOMLR898
Batchelor, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Thana, under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a case where one Rama Dhan Powar was charged, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with murder by causing the death of his uncle, Balu Rama Powar, on the night of the 22nd April 1915. The Jury unanimously returned a verdict of 'not guilty.' But the learned Judge disagreed with that Jury, and being clearly of opinion that it was necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court, he has accordingly submitted it, recording the grounds of his opinion that the accused should have been convicted of murder.2. Upon this reference the whole case is open before us, and we have heard a complete argument. The result of that argument on our minds is to satisfy us that upon the evidence on the record the accused is entitled to a verdict of acquittal.3. There is, we think, no doubt that the accused bore ill-will to his uncle, the deceased, whom h...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Ramdas Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom137(1); 31Ind.Cas.371
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who convicted the accused, Shankar, Ramdas under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and, the accused having admitted certain previous convictions, passed a sentence of eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment.2. We were compelled to call for the record and proceedings, as the learned Magistrate's judgment did not disclose to us any reasons why the evidence for the prosecution was accepted as sufficient. While we certainly have, no wish to impose upon the Presidency Magistrate any further burden than is imposed by the express terms of the Criminal Procedure Code, we think his attention should be drawn to the requirements of Clause (i) of Section 370 of the Code and to the decision in Natabar Ghose v. Provash Chandra Chatterjee 27 C. 461 : 4 C.W.N. 467 with which we agree. In the present case the learned Presidency Magistrate has written only: 'I convict the accused. I believe the evidence of the complainant ...
Tag this Judgment!Yesubai Bhratar Sadashiv Ganesh Despande Vs. Sadashiv Ganesh Despande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.934
1. This is an appeal by a Hindu wife who sued her husband for separate maintenance. She was defeated in the trial Court, because the learned Judge there held, first, that the plaintiff voluntarily deserted her husband, the defendant, and secondly, that the unchastity pleaded in bar of the plaintiff's claim was proved.2. The parties to the suit were married in 1872 or 1873. The rupture occurred either in 1885 or in 1896. According to the defendant it was in 1885 that he abandoned his wife, because he detected her in the very act of adultery. The wife, who denies all unchastity, says that the separation occurred in 1896 when she was abandoned and expelled by her husband. It is admitted that in 1887 the defendant married another woman. This suit was filed in April 1912. The main object of this appeal, as the learned Pleader Mr. Desai has candidly made known to us, is to remove the stigma of unchastity which the lower Court's judgment has attached to the plaintiff. And here, we think, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai and anr. Vs. Keshav Annaji Pokharkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom239; 33Ind.Cas.396
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiffs, Laxmibai and Anandrao, sue the defendants, Keshav and Punamchand, for specific performance of a contract to buy certain immoveable property made on the 4th of March 1914, and in form made and executed by Keshav alone. There is an alternative, prayer for damages, and at the conclusion of the case the plaintiffs expressed a desire, in view of certain anticipated difficulties, to abandon their claim for specific performance and confine it to damages.2. The case has occupied a considerable time in hearing owing to the difficulties which I felt from the beginning in drawing the line between what was, and what was not, open, first, to the plaintiffs, and, secondly, to the first defendant to prove in explanation or variation of the written contract.3. The difficulties created by Section 92 of our Evidence Act appear to me to be obvious. In the English Courts, in somewhat analogous if not exactly similar cases, they have been surmounted by processes of reasoning wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Trimbak Nadkarni Vs. Narayan Shivrao Aras
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom280; (1915)17BOMLR955
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues to enforce a mortgage effected in his favour by the 1st defendant. The mortgage security consisted of a piece of land, the property of the Ist defendant, and of land which was the property of the family of the 5th defendant and his sons, the present appellants, which was ostensibly burdened with a mortgage debt created by the 5th defendant in respect of certain payments made or liabilities incurred by the Ist defendant at the 5th defendant's request in respect of dealings in a trade in fish instituted by the 5th defendant and carried on largely under the management of the Ist defendant.2. The present appellants pleaded that they were not liable for their father's debt; that they did not admit the bona fides of the mortgage bonds of their father; that they were passed for debts incurred for immoral and illegal purposes; that their father was given to profligate habits and was fond of gambling in speculative transactions recklessly; that they derive...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bechar Anop
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR888
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Broach who convicted the three appellants of voluntarily causing grievous hurt otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation, and under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2 to five years' rigorous imprisonment and accused No. 3 to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The only contention advanced by the learned pleader on behalf of the appellants was that the learned Judge below should have acquitted the appellants on the ground that they were entitled by their right of private defence to use the violence which in fact they did use. The evidence, however, satisfies us that the fight which resulted in the death of one man and in injuries to one or two others, took place in the public street between the accused's party and the deceased's party, and that both sides voluntarily engaged in it. There is every reason to believe that both sides were more or less drunk on the occasio...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramjan Dadubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR921
1. In this case the two accused were convicted by the First Class City Magistrate of Sholapur, Mr. Poredi, under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. By way of punishment the accused were merely directed to be released on their entering into bonds for Rs. 50 and one surety for Rs. 100 each to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for six months. That order was made under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The conviction was had in October 1914, so that the bonds executed have now expired. In these circumstances, we think it unnecessary to pursue these proceedings further. But it should be pointed out to the learned Magistrate for his future guidance that Section 562 is not in terms applicable to convictions of cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property under Section 420 or of using as genuine a forged document under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.2. With these observations the papers should be returned, the rule being discharged....
Tag this Judgment!Bechar Anop Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.372
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, of Broach, who convicted the three appellants of voluntarily causing grievous hurt otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation, and under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2 to five years' rigorous imprisonment and accused No. 3 to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The only contention advanced by the learned Pleader on behalf of the appellants was that the learned Judge below should have acquitted the appellants, on the ground that they were entitled by their right of private defence to use the violence which in fact they, did use. The evidence, however, satisfies us that the fight which resulted in the death of one man and in injuries to one or two Mothers, took place in the public street between the accused's party and the deceased's party, and that both sides Voluntarily engaged in it. There is every reason to believe that both sides were more or less drunk on the oc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »