Skip to content


Mumbai Court May 1917 Judgments Home Cases Mumbai 1917 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.005 seconds)

May 16 1917 (PC)

Chimanlal Maneklal and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.997

Shah, J.1. The petitioners before this Court were tried by the first class Magistrate of Broach on charges under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act of 1887. The accused Nos. 1 to 27 were convicted under Section 5 and accused No, 28 was convicted under Section 4 of the Act.2. On the occasion of the annual fair at Shuklatirtha some of these persons had gone there and occupied the house in question. In pursuance of a warrant under Section 6 of the Act, a search was made, when these persons were found playing cards and some money also was found which was the result of small slakes while playing cards. The learned Trial Magistrate has relied upon Section 7 of the Act and has presumed that the house where the play was going on was a common gaming house within the meaning of the Act. 'But that Section shows that the presumption is rebuttable. In this case the facts found by the Magistrate, stated in his own words, are as follows: 'They were a party of friends out on a picnic. They amused t...

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1917 (PC)

Kandukuri Balasurya Prasadha Row Vs. the Secretary of State for India

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR751

Parker, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Madras, dated the 9th September, 1910 and made in three actions, in each of which Kandukuri Maha Lakshmamma (who has since died and is now represented by the appellants) was plaintiff and the Secretary of State for India was defendant. The plaintiff sought in each action to recover from the Secretary of State monies paid under protest in respect of water cesses which the Government of India had levied under the Madras Act No. VII of 1SG5, as amended by the Act No. V of 1900. The point to be determined was the right of the Government to levy these cesses. The cess the subject-matter of the first action was levied in respect of water used for the second crop on zeraiti lands, part of the estates of Urlam and Devadi, of which the plaintiff was owner. Devadi was originally part of Urlam and is hereinafter included in the expression ' the Urlam Estate' or ''the Urlam Zemindari.' The cess the subject of the second...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //