Mumbai Court April 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.
Manuel Philip and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom280; 41Ind.Cas.158
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction recorded by the first class Magistrate of Bandra and confirmed on appeal before the Sessions Judge of Thana. The applicants have been convicted of being members of an unlawful assembly under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and of mischief under Section 426 of the Penal Code in that they, with common intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, pulled up certain fishing stakes which he had put down in the sea at a distance of five or six miles beyond low water mark.2. On the merits it is contended by Mr. Gupte that no offence is proved to have been committed, inasmuch as the applicants were protected by the existence of a certain custom among these fishermen, which had been infringed by the complainant. It appears to me, however, that on this point the finding of the learned Sessions Judge puts the defence out of Court, For the finding is that this violent uprooting of the complainant's stakes had nothing ...
Emperor Vs. Nazar Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR537
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. By Section 2 of Act XI of 1846 it was enacted that the administration of criminal justice within the territory referred to by the Act should vest in the Agent to the Governor of Bombay and by Section 3 it was enacted that it should be competent to the Governor-in-Council to prescribe such rules as he might deem proper for the guidance of the Agent and to define the authority to be exercised by the Agent in criminal trials and what cases he should submit to the decision of the Sudder Foujdaree Adawlut. By Section 4 it was enacted that upon the receipt of any criminal trials referred by the Agent under the Rules which might thereafter be prescribed by the Governor-in-Council the Sudder Foujdaree Adawlut should proceed to pass a final judgment, or such other order as might after mature -consideration seem to the Court requisite and proper, in the same manner as if the trial had been sent up in ordinary course from a Sessions Judge. Under Section 3 of the Act the G...
Bai Raman Vs. Jagjivandas Kashidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom229; (1917)19BOMLR629; 41Ind.Cas.277
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant claiming as the widow of Chunilal Lakhmidas has an equal right by inheritance to the property left by Bai Parvati with the plaintiff Jagjiwandas Kashidas who is admittedly an heir. Parvati had two sons, Jagjiwandas the plaintiff and Lakhmidas who pre-deceased his mother, leaving a son Chunilal of whom the appellant Bai Kiki is the widow. Jagjiwan therefore is the son and Chunilal in whose place Kiki stands was the grand-son. The property is. admittedly Stridhana of the class styled in the Mayukha nontechnical. In the case of any difference between the Mitakshara and the Mayukha the parties will be governed by the Mayukha. 'With regard to Stridhana of the class which is known as technical, that is Anvadheya Stridhana and what wealth is given through affection by the husband, the three writers on Hindu law to whom reference has been made in the arguments, namely Vijnaneshwara, Nil...
Nazar Mahomed and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom224; 41Ind.Cas.641
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Mewas Agent, West Khandesh, by whom the appellants have been convicted under Sections 326 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, each term being less than five years.2. The appeal gives rise to a preliminary question of some difficulty, that is to say, the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a convicted prisoner who has been sentenced by the Court of the Mewas Agent to a term not exceeding, five years' imprisonment. The question was answered in 1890 by a Division Bench of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Sarya 15 B. 505 : 8 Ind Dec. 342. where it was held that such an appeal did not lie to the High Court. This decision was noticed and commented on in Imperatrix v. Ratnya 25 B. 667. where, however, no doubt appears to have been thrown on the authority of the earlier case. The authority of that case is, however, exposed to some doubt and uncer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›