Mumbai Court August 1917 Judgments
Bai Monghibai Vs. Doongersey Lakhmidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom46; (1917)19BOMLR887; 43Ind.Cas.273
Beaman, J.1. The point arising in this case is a very narrow one but in my opinion extremely difficult, if not impossible, to decide upon any recognized principle. The material facts are that the plaintiff owns a godown in Ahmedabad Street, between which and Baroda Street, in which the godown belonging to defendant No. 1 and leased to defendant No. 2 stood, runs a narrow gully 3 feet wide. On the 19th of February 1915, the southern wall of the godown in the Baroda Street fell against the northern wall of the plaintiff's godown and with it fell a considerable number of bags of rice. The effect of the concussion was materially to damage the plaintiff's northern wall. In respect of that damage, not being clear which of the defendants is liable, the plaintiff sues them both. I think one or the other must be liable : the difficulty is to determine which.2. As between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 the material facts are that the godown in Baroda Street was originally erected on lan...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Sri Sri Radha Krishna Chanderji Vs. Ram Bahadur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR502
Sumner, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession of 150 bighas of land in mouzah Nagdah, in the pergunnah of the same namo and the district of Monghyr. The plaintiff's had acquired inter alia such right in that land as could be sold under a decree in favour of mortgagees against two members of a joint Hindu family, named Eudra Parkash Misser and his younger brother, Dharam Parkash Misser, and they alleged this right to be the full title to the land. The principal defendant, an idol by his she baits, who were in actual possession by their tenants, claimed in right of a judgment creditor of the father of Rudra and Dharam, who had bought the land at an execution sale under his decree in 1883, and they alleged that the title thus derived from the father was better than any title that could be derived from his sons. They also relied on adverse possession. They proved that they had held the land by their tenants for many years before the suit, but the plaintiffs in reply alleged effective ...
Tag this Judgment!Nensukhdas Shivnaraen Vs. Birdichand Anraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom19; 43Ind.Cas.699
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Beaman, J.2. The following facts are undisputed.3. The plaintiffs consigned 440 bales of Malkapur cotton from Malkapur to the defendants in Bombay for sale on commission, and the defendants advanced against the bales 80 to 85 per cent.of the then market value of the cotton. The railway receipts were handed to a firm of Muccadams, Damji Hirji and Co., who took delivery of the bales and stored them on their jetha at Colaba. Damji Hirji and Co. failed on the 30th of September 1913. At that date 300 of the plaintiffs' bales were accounted for by the defendants but the remaining 140 bales were missing and not accounted for. The defendants subsequently recovered 23 out of these 140 bales. The learned Judge finch, and it is not disputed, that Damji Hirji and Co.'s transactions were, towards the close of their business career, thoroughly fraudulent. The learned Judge remarks bales cannot be stolen and the only explanation given for the heavy loss of bale...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vithaldas Hirji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom200; (1917)19BOMLR830; 42Ind.Cas.920
Heaton, J.1. The facts established by the evidence in this case show that the accused were gambling within the second enclosure of the Bombay Race Course during the races on the 1st January 1917. Their kind of gambling was this: they set up an opposition to the totalizator, received money from persons, who bet on the horses running and promised to pay on the winner at the same rate as the totalizator. They were charged before the Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates at the Mazagaon Court under Section 12 of the Bombay Gambling Act (Bombay Act IV of 1887) and were acquitted. The Govern-ment of Bombay have appealed against this acquittal and we have to determine whether on the facts found the acquittal is right or wrong. I think it is right and for reasons which I will briefly state.2. The material part of Section 12 runs as follows-12. A Police-officer may apprehend without warrant:-(a) any person found playing for money or other valuable thing with cards. dice, counters or other in...
Tag this Judgment!Ladhabhai Lakhmsi Vs. Sir Jamsetji Jijeebhoy Bart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom111; (1917)19BOMLR813; 42Ind.Cas.882
Kajiji, J.1. By an indenture dated 1st March 1913 the defendants leased to one Bomanji Pestonji Vatcha for a term of ninety-nine years a plot of land situated at Tardeo. By an Indenture of Assignment dated 22nd May 1916 the lessee assigned the lease for the then residue of the said term to the plaintiff, Ladhabhoy Lakhamsey, for the sum of Rs. 39500. By Clause 7 of the Indenture of Lease dated 1st March 1913 it is provided as follows. [The clause is set out above].2. The plaintiff being anxious to purchase the said plot intimated to the defendants by a notice in writing dated 25th September 1916 his intention of purchasing the said plot under the provisions of the said Clause 7 and the defendants by their solicitors' letter, dated 29th September 1916, called upon the plaintiff to submit for their approval a draft conveyance of the said plot. On or about 14th November 1916, the plaintiff forwarded to the defendants the draft conveyance called for by them. The draft conveyance contained ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bai Jiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR823
Beaman, J.1. I take this opportunity of making one last attempt to clear a confusion of thought which prevails generally throughout the mofussil and even, I am afraid, in higher places. This case affords a good illustration of what I mean. For, on the facts, it is quite clear that the accused must be guilty either of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or of simple hurt. But, as so constantly happens, the Sessions Judge first holds that the accused is not guilty of culpable-homicide not amounting to murder, because she did not intend to cause death and the injury which she did intend to cause was in his opinion not likely in ordinary course to cause death. So far so good. But he immediately proceeds to add that since the accused inflicted the injury with violence and tenacity, she must be guilty of grievous hurt and convicts and sentences her accordingly.2. A very little scrutiny of the three sections dealing with hurt, grievous hurt and culpable homicide not amounting to murder ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Jiba Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.754
Beaman, J.1. I take this opportunity of making one last attempt to clear a confusion of thought which prevails generally throughout the mofussil, and even, I am afraid, in higher places. This case affords a good illustration of what I mean. For, on the facts, it is quite clear that the accused must be guilty either of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or of simple hurt. But, as so constantly happens, the Sessions Judge first holds that the accused is not guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, because she did not intend to cause death and the injury which she did intend to cause was in his opinion not likely in the ordinary course to cause death. So far so good But he immediately proceeds to add that since the accused inflicted the injury with violence and tenacity; she must be guilty of grievous hurt and convicts and sentences her accordingly.2. A very little scrutiny of the three sections dealing with hurt, grievous hurt and culpable homicide not amounting to mur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›