Mumbai Court January 1917 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.
Emperor Vs. Kikabhai Ranchhoddas and Chhagan Tribho Van
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom239(1); (1917)ILR41Bom464
1. In these appeals, which are brought by the Government of Bombay, the only question for decision is whether a bicycle is or is not a vehicle within the meaning of the word as used in Clause (b) of Section 61 of the District Police Act, Bombay Act IV of 1890. That clause provides a penalty for any person who 'drives a vehicle of any description' otherwise than on the left side of the street along which he is travelling. The learned Magistrate has thought that a bicycle is not a vehicle. We are clearly of the contrary opinion. A bicycle is a carriage and is, therefore, in our opinion, a vehicle. We further think that no difficulty is created by the use of the word 'drive,' and that a bicycle may be said to be a vehicle driven by the man who rides it. That is the view which was accepted in Taylor v. Goodwin (1879) 4 Q.B.D. 228, where it was contended that the person propelling the bicycle drives it, inasmuch as he guides the machine and regulates its pace. Mr. Justice Mellor in giving e...
Dhondi Ranoji Patil Vs. Revappa Satappa Sintre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom266; (1917)19BOMLR276
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This was a redemption suit filed subject to the conditions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for taking accounts under four mortgages and for possession of the property mortgaged. The four mortgages were as follows:-A mortgage with possession for Rs. 500 of all the lands in suit, except Revision Survey No. 58 dated the 8th July 1875; secondly, a mortgage with possession of Revision Survey No. 58, dated the 5th March 1878, for Rs. 95; third, a mortgage of the property comprised in the mortgage of 1875, namely eleven Survey numbers for Rs. 600 in cash, dated the 8th August 1882; fourth, a mortgage of the eleven Survey numbers, subject of the mortgage of 1875 and Survey No. 58, which was the subject of the mortgage of 1878 for Rs. 700, dated the 28th November 1902. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree declaring that the 1st and 2nd mortgages had been fully satisfied, that Rs. 1,200 were due to the defendants on the 3rd mortgage and Rs. 962-12-0...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›