Mumbai Court March 1916 Judgments
Emperor Vs. a Deaf and Dumb Accused
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom598
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the accused, a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings have been submitted to this Court, under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Section 341 provides that in such a case as this the High Court should pass such orders as it thinks fit. The law in England appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see Russell on Crimes, Vol. I, p. 62, Archbold's Criminal Practice p. 11 and The King v. Elizabeth Steel. (1787) 1 Leach 451 Queen v. Bowka Hari (1874) 22 W.R. 35 and The. Queen-Empress v. Reubin Samuel (1894) Cri. Cas. 696 are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in India. In this case we are satisfied from the learned Magistrate's judgment that he was right i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. a Deaf and Dumb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1917Bom288; 37Ind.Cas.495
1. In this case the accused, a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings have been-submitted to this Court, under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Section 341 provides that in such a case as this the High Court should pass such orders as it thinks fit. The law in England appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see Russell on Crimes, Volume I, page 62 : Archbold's Criminal Practice, page 11 and Rex v. Steel (1787) 1 L.C. C. 451; Queen v. Bowka Hari 22 W. E. 35 Cr. and Queen v. Bowka 22 W. R. 72 Cr. Queen-Empress v. Reubiri Samuel (1894) Rat. Cr. 696 : Cr. Rg. No. 26 of 1894 are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in India. In this case we are satisfied from the learned Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Jivappa Timmappa Bijapur Vs. Jeergi Murgeappa Virbhadrappa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom551
Batchelor, J.1. In the Shimoga Court in the Mysore State the opponents obtained a personal decree ex parte against the present appellant in his absence. That decree was afterwards sent by the Shimoga Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bagalkot for execution.2. Two questions arise: first, whether it was open to the executing British Court to enquire whether the Shimoga Court's decree was passed with jurisdiction, and secondly, if it is so open, then, whether the Shimoga Court had or had not jurisdiction to make this decree in absentem against the appellant who is a resident of British territory.3. In Haji Musa Haji Ahmed v. Purmanand Nursey (1890) 15 Bom. 216 Mr. Justice Farran held that the Court executing a foreign Court's decree was entitled to exercise a judicial discretion as to whether it would put into force the provisions of Section 229B of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. Section 229B of that Code is reproduced in Section 44 of the present Code and deals with the p...
Tag this Judgment!Jivappa Tamappa Vs. Jeerji Murgeappa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom307; 36Ind.Cas.363
Stanley Batchelor, J.1. In the Shimoga Court in the Mysore State the opponents obtained a personal decree ex parte against the present appellant in his absence. That decree was afterwards sent by the Shimoga Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bagalkot for execution.2. Two questions arise, first, whether it was open to the executing British Court to enquire whether the Shimoga Court's decree was passed with jurisdiction, and secondly, if it is so open, then whether the Shimoga Court had or had not jurisdiction to make this decree in absentem against the appellant who is a resident of British territory.3. In Haji Musa Haji Ahmed v. Purmanand Nursey 15 B. 216, Mr. Justice Farran held that the Court executing a foreign Court's decree was entitled to exercise a judicial discretion as to whether it would put into force the provisions of Section 229B of the Civil Procedure Code of 1862. Section 229B of that Code is produced in Section 44 of the present Coda and deals with the powe...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Motishaw and Co. Vs. the Mercantile Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom144; (1917)ILR41Bom566
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are a British Bank carrying on business in Bombay. The defendants are a firm of merchants, British subjects, carrying on business also in Bombay. On the 24th June 1914, George Alberti, a German, resident in Hamburgh, drew a bill of exchange upon the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs for 65-0-6 payable at thirty days' sight to the order of the plaintiffs--value received--which the drawees were to place to the account of the drawer as advised. The bill purported to be drawn upon the defendants against 50 bales of goods bearing a certain mark per S.S. Lichtenfels, a German steamer. The plaintiffs allege, and it is not disputed, that the bill was purchased by them in London for its full value and sent out to the plaintiffs in Bombay. It was presented to the defendants' for acceptance with the shipping documents relating to the bales of goods mentioned in the bill. It was accepted on the 20th July 1914 payable at the office of the plaintiffs in B...
Tag this Judgment!Ruttonsi Rowji Vs. the Bombay United Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom518
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Macleod in a suit filed by the plaintiffs in which they claimed delivery of 113 bales of piece-goods and tendered Rs. 7,236 as the price thereof: The defendants counter-claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,230-12-0 which, they contended, was due to them by the plaintiffs in respect of goods not taken delivery of. Judgment was given for the defendants upon their counter-claim.2. The defendants entered into various contracts, seven in number, in September and October 1913, for the sale and delivery of piece-goods of certain specified descriptions. The contracts will be referred to under the letters A to G.3. Contract A was for the 251 bales of which the plaintiffs took delivery of some while the contract was cancelled as regards others and 84 bales remained the subject of dispute.4. Contracts B, C and D covered 658 bales of which 159 were taken delivery of by the plaintiffs who refused to take delivery of the rest on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Motishaw and Co. Vs. the Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.258
1. The plaintiffs are a British Bank carrying on business in Bombay. The defendants are a firm of merchants, British subjects, carrying on business also in Bombay. On the 24th June 1914, George Alberti, a German, resident in Hamburgh, drew a bill of exchange upon the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs for payable at thirty days' sight to the order of the plaintiffs---value received---which the drawees were to place to the account of the drawer as advised. The bill purported to be drawn upon the defendants against 50 bales of goods bearing a certain market per S. S. Lichtenfels, a German steamer. The plaintiffs allege, and it is not disputed, that the bill was purchased by them in London for its full value and sent out to the plaintiffs in Bombay. It was presented to the defendants for acceptance with the shipping documents relating to the bales of goods mentioned in the bill. It was accepted on the 20th July 1914 payable at the office of the plaintiffs in Bombay. The bill, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Ruttonsey Rowji and ors. Vs. the Bombay United Spinning and Manufactur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom4; 37Ind.Cas.271
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Macleod in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, in which they claimed delivery of 113 bales of piece goods and tendered Rs. 7,236 as the price thereof. The defendants counter-claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000 which, they contended, was due to them by the plaintiffs in respect of goods not taken delivery of. Judgment was given for the defendants upon their counter-claim.2. The defendants entered into various contracts, seven in number, in September and October 1913, for the sale and delivery of piece goods of certain specified descriptions. The contracts will be referred to under the letters A to G.3. Contract A was for 251 bales of which the plaintiffs took delivery of some, while the contract was cancelled as regards others and 84 bales remained the subject of dispute.4. Contracts B, C and D covered 658 bales of which 159 were taken delivery of by the plaintiffs who refused to take delivery of the rest, on the ground that the...
Tag this Judgment!Pranjivandas Jagjivandas Mehta Vs. Chan Mah Phee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR664
Shaw, J.1. Their Lordships think it unnecessary in this case to call upon learned counsel for the respondent. They are of opinion that the judgment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma appealed from is correct.2. The rights of the parties have to be determined, in their Lordships' opinion, by a written agreement, which is, in their Lordships' view, the limit and standard fully measuring the obligations of Mah Saw, who obtained an advance of 13,000 rupees from the respondent on the Ist June, 1906.3. On that date there was a notandum put upon the back of a promissory note then granted, and the notandum is to this effect: 'As security, grant of a house in 14th Street, Rangoon.' Their Lordships take no stock of an alteration made after that notandum was signed, by which there was an interpolation of the words ' Strand Road and,' which words would have, in appearance at least, extended the scope of the -V security from ' a house in 14th Street, Rangoon, to ' a house in Strand Road and 14th Str...
Tag this Judgment!Nabibhai Vazirbhai Vs. Dayabhai Amulakh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom200; (1916)ILR40Bom504
Batchelor, J.1. The present application is made by the judgment-debtor who was the 4th defendant in the suit. The suit was tiled by the plaintiffs to recover upon two documents, and the Court in. which the suit was instituted was the Court of Kalol in the territories of His Highness the Gaikwar of Baroda. There a decree was passed in the plaintiffs' favour, and ultimately the plaintiffs applied that this decree should be transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. That transfer was accordingly made, and the darkhast has been heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of the First Class.2. The only one of his findings with which we are now concerned is the finding that the execution of this decree is not barred by time. That finding is challenged by Mr. Thakor on behalf of the present applicant, and it seems to me that Mr. Thakor's contention must be allowed.3. There is some uncertainty as to what the law of limitation is in Baroda with regard to the execut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »