Mumbai Court November 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.
Metharam Ramrakhiomal Vs. Rewachand Ramrakhiomal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR566
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 24th June, 1910, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind, which confirmed a decree, dated the 3rd April, 1908, of a single Judge of that Court exercising jurisdiction as the District Court of Karachi.2. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought in the Court of the District of Karachi, on the 26th May, 1905, by the appellants here to obtain a declaration that the property which one Shewaram purported to devise by his will and a codicil was the joint family property of Shewaram, the plaintiffs and some of the defendants, and that the will and codicil were inoperative to pass any title to the property. Other reliefs were claimed, to which it is not necessary to refer. The executors of the will were amongst the defendants to the suit.3. Shewaram died on the 27th May, 1899. He had been and was at the time of his death a member of a joint Hindu family, which was governed by the law of the Mitakshara. The plaintif...
Tarini Charan Sarkar Vs. Bishun Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR553
Buckmaster, J.1. These four appeals have been consolidated by order of the Board dated the 26th March, 1917, and have been brought on and heard together.2. In three of them Tarini Charan Sarkar is the appellant and Babu Bishun Chand is one of the respondents, and in the fourth Babu Bishun Chand is the appellant and Tarini Charan Sarkar is a respondent.3. All the appeals are against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated the 25th April, 1912, and three decrees made by that Court consequent on the judgment.4. The questions raised arise out of certain mortgage transactions affecting a Tahal Touzi No. 7062 and, though the facts and circumstances are complicated and involved, for the purpose of explaining the real issues that have to be decided they can be briefly summarised.5. In the early part of 1904 the registered proprietors of the said Touzi were Ram Rattan Sarkar in respect of a 4-anna share, and Sangam Sarkar in respect of the remaining 12 anna share. The Touzi, however, was...
Emperor Vs. Mari Parsu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR87
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Thana and a jury. The jury found the accused guilty. The Judge accepted the verdict and proceeded to pass a sentence in respect of that charge, and sentenced the accused to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the 23rd August. There was. however, a charge against the accused under Section 75 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which, for reasons not material for our present purposes, was not proceeded with before passing the sentence on the charge under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. The trial practically ended when the sentence was passed in respect of the offence under Section 379. The learned Judge, however, proceeded thereafter to try the accused, and to record evidence, with respect to the charge of previous convictions. The jury found the accused guilty on that charge on the 31st of August and the learned Judge sentenced the accused...
Amrit Narayan Singh Vs. Gaya Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR546
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a suit by a Hindu reversioner to recover possession of certain properties that originally belonged to his maternal grandfather, Jhamman Singh. He alleges that the defendants, respondents before this Board, wrongfully possessed themselves of these properties under colour of certain arbitration proceedings whilst the estate was held by his mother, Kar Koer, as a female owner under the Hindu law. Kar Koer died in 1005, and this action was brought in 1908. The suit is therefore clearly within time. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the arbitration proceedings and the decree on the award which gave to the predecessors of the respondents possession of these properties are binding on the appellant.2. On Jhamman's death Radha Koer, his widow, applied for the registration of her name in place of her deceased husband in the Collector's records. Her application was opposed by some of Jhamman's agnatic male relations, whom the respondents now rep...
Emperor Vs. Punja Guni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR98
Heaton, J.1. The present matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge of Kanara in the following circumstances.2. A subject of the State of Junaghad in Kathiawar was arrested in Bombay and accused of committing a serious offence on a ship belonging to a Junaghad subject on the high seas some eighteen miles or thereabouts from the coast of the Kanara District. Having been arrested in Bombay the accused was taken to Karwar. He was placed before the First Class Magistrate there and on the point being raised that Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction to enquire into the case. The Sessions Judge, however, doubted whether these proceedings were founded on any jurisdiction and has submitted the case to us for our orders.3. If we find that the Kanara Courts have not jurisdiction, we shall have so to express our opinion and leave it to the Magistrate to discharge the accused. It cannot be doubted that some Court somewhere has jurisdiction to try this offence. And seeing that the accu...
isabali Tayabali Vs. Mahadu Ekoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom5; (1918)20BOMLR29; 43Ind.Cas.851
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiff sued as a landlord to eject his tenant, the defendant, on the ground that the lease was determined by the defendant's disclaimer of the plaintiff's title. For the defendant it is contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action inasmuch as he had never, before filing the suit, done any act showing his intention to determine the lease. It is admitted that no such act was done by the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, but it is urged that the mere institution of the suit and the assertion in the plaint as to the repudiation of the landlord's title constitute a sufficient manifestation of the plaintiff's intention to determine the lease. The sole question in appeal is whether this argument should be allowed. The point falls to be decided under the Transfer of Property Act, where Clause (g) of Section 111 is the governing provision.2. For the defendant reliance is placed on Anandamoyee v. Lakhi Chandra Mitra I.L.R. (1906) Cal. 339 which was follo...
Ramchandra Gangadhar Karve Vs. Mahadev Moreshvar Phadnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom14; (1918)20BOMLR172
Heaton, J.1. Two points arise in this appeal, one of which is peculiar to the facts of this particular case, and the other is a more general question. I will deal with the latter first.2. It happened that this appeal was presented beyond the time allowed by law and that an application was made by the appellant to a single Judge of this Court to excuse the delay. That Judge refused to excuse the delay. And here I pause to remark that this order had the effect of dismissing or rejecting the appeal and that it was an order of a final character, not of an interlocutory character. The appellant appealed to a Bench of this Court against that order and the Bench excused the delay, the result of which was that the appeal was admitted and has now come on for hearing.3. It is argued that the order of a single Judge refusing to excuse the delay is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Charter of this High Court and that therefore no further appeal lay. But seeing, as I have said, ...
Emperor Vs. Mir Hashamali and Mir Kasamali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR121
Heaton, J.1. In this case the applicant has been required to give security for good behaviour by an order made under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has been required to give his own recognizance for Rs. 10,000, and one surety for Rs. 5,000. He has been unable to provide the surety. He appealed to the District Magistrate against the order who dismissed the appeal, and now he has applied to us in revision.2. A good many points of some nicety have arisen in the course of the argument. The net result is, however, that, in my opinion, the order must be set aside, because I think the applicant has not had a fair trial. I use the word trial although perhaps it is not technically the correct word to apply to proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. The reason why I think he did not have a fair trial is this : He was arrested under the provisions of Section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was taken before a Magistrate, and a complaint was presented by a ...
In Re: Ramrao N. Bellary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom244; (1918)20BOMLR117
Heaton, J.1. The applicant in this matter has asked us to set aside the sanction given by the District Magistrate of Dharwar to prosecute him for abetting the giving of false evidence. On the merits of the case we say nothing. But a question has been raisod as to whether that District Magistrate had jurisdiction to make this order, a question the answer to which it is not so easy to give.2. What happened is this. The First Class Magistrate of Ranebennur enquired into a case of murder and committed it to the Court of Session, and it is in relation to the proceedings of this First Class Magistrate's Court that the alleged offence was committed. Before the alleged offence of abetting the giving of false evidence can be enquired into by a Magistrate there must be a sanction either of the Court in which were pending the proceedings in relation to which the alleged offence was committed or of some Court to which that Court is subordinate. The Court before which the proceedings were pending w...
Emperor Vs. Bandu Ebbahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR79
Shah, J.1. We have heard an interesting and a careful argument from Mr. Velinkar on behalf of the appellants in this case. I have considered the evidence in the light of his arguments and the criticism to which the evidence has been subjected by him. The charge against the two accused is that from the 10th of October 1916 they wrongfully confined one Vithibai for three or more days and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 2 is a brothel-keeper in Bombay and accused No. 1 is said to have supplied women to be used as prostitutes in this brothel from time to time. He brought Vithibai, the complainant in this case, to Bombay and kept her in the brothel of accused No. 2. The case for the prosecution is that this Vithibai like other women in the brothel was kept in confinement. Vithibai stayed on in the house kept by accused No. 2 from the 10th of October until May 1917 when an application was prepared on her behalf by the witnes...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »