Mumbai Court August 1915 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.
Mahomed Haji Essack Vs. Shaikh Abdul Rahman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom278; (1915)17BOMLR989
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This case comes before us on appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Davar sitting as Judge in Insolvency, dated the 16th of April, 1915, whereby the insolvent after refusal of his discharge and notwithstanding opposition by a judgment-creditor was given an order protecting him from arrest till April, 1916.2. The order refusing the insolvent's application for discharge was passed on a judgment of the 8th of April in which the reasons for refusing discharge were stated and it was shown that numerous facts falling within the categories (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (j) of Section 39(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act had been proved against the insolvent. It was found inter alia that on the day preceding his petition in insolvency the respondent to make good certain defalcations assigned a debt worth Rs. 29,000 and properties worth over two lacs to creditors whom he had defrauded by breaches of trust. The learned Judge stated that he would have tried the insolvent in...
Emperor Vs. Bechur Anop
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom105
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...
Rangappa BIn Ningappa Immadi and ors. Vs. Venkanbhat BIn Linganbhat Jo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom112
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The contest in this case resolves itself into this, whether the ceremonials observed by Lingayets in marriages are to be regarded as a whole in deciding whether or not the village Gramopadhya is entitled to perform the ceremony, or whether the ceremony can be split up into parts, and if it is found that some part of the ceremonial is similar to that according to the Brahmin ritual the Gramopadhya can insist upon payment of fees in respect of such part of the ceremonial as may have been performed by another. The point is stated exceedingly well by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mr. Wagh. He says:It is urged that some of the ceremonials such as the fastening of the Mangalsutra and the Kankandhara are common to the Hindu form and the Pancha-Kalas form, and that therefore the fastening of the Mangalsutra and the Kankandhara in the Pancha-Kalas form of marriage, entitles the plaintiffs to the fee appropriate to the Hindu form. If the ceremonials of the Brahmins the Jains...
Emperor Vs. Bai Mahalaxmi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom195; (1915)17BOMLR910
Shah, J.1. This application arises out of a complaint made by one Kanaiyalal against two persons, Bai Mahalaxmi and Shankarlal. He charged these two persons under Section 477 of the Indian Penal Code and alleged that a certain page containing two khatas of the accused in an account-book of his was torn and burnt by Bai Mahalaxmi in the presence of Shankarlal when he had gone with his account-book to demand money which was due by these persons to him.2. The proceedings before the Magistrate were under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, the offence charged being exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The Magistrate did not issue any process against Shankarlal, but examined him as a witness in the course of the inquiry before him. After recording the evidence which the complainant adduced, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused, Bai Mahalaxmi, on the ground that in his opinion the evidence was very interested and unreliable and that he did not at all believe it.3. Ag...
Karl Ettlinger Vs. Chagandas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom232; (1915)17BOMLR1087; 33Ind.Cas.205
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiffs, Ettlinger & Co., a firm of naturalized Germans, doing business in London, made a contract on the 24th July 1914, with the defendant firm, through their London agent, Smith, by which the defendants agreed to supply the plaintiff firm with 1000 tons freight at 11s. 6d. per ton, the material to be carried being manganese from the Port of Bombay for Antwerp, shipment in September. On the 7th of September 1914, the defendants telegraphed to the plaintiffs that owing to force majeure the contract was cancelled. The plaintiffs refused to accept the cancellation and hold the defendants to account for damages.2. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that they are absolved from performance of the contract on three grounds: (1) that the export of Manganese from India was prohibited by the Government of India Notification of the 5th of August 1914, published in Bombay on the 7 of August 1914; (2) that the performance of the contract became impossible as no freigh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›