Mumbai Court January 1918 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.
Subraya Venkappa Hegde Vs. Sombaya Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom184; (1918)20BOMLR335; 45Ind.Cas.561
Beaman, J.1. The consent decree runs in the following terms :-Plaintiff do recover from defendant Rs. 253-10-5 out of Rs. 753-10-5 alleged by plaintiff (to be due to him) and admitted by defendant, on the 30th day of Chaitra of the next cyclical year Rakshasa (14th April 1915). As to the balance of Rs. 500 on deducting the said amount (of Rs. 253-10-5) plaintiff' do pay the same to defendant by live instatments of Us. 100 each payable on the 30th day of the Magh of each year beginning from the 30th of Magh of the next year, that is, of the cyclical year Rakshasa. In this way defendant do pay (the whole amount) by six instalments. In case of failure to pay the amount of any one instalment, he should pay the amount of instalment he has failed to pay with interest at the rate of Rs. 12-8-0 per cent, per annum from the date of failure to pay the instalments up to the date of payment. In case of failure to pay the amount of any two instalments at the period fixed, defendant do pay to plaint...
Emperor Vs. Haribhai Dada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR372
Shah, J.1. The appellant, accused No. 3, along with the other accused, was charged in the lower Court with having conspired and kidnapped the girl Pashi, a minor under sixteen years of age, from the guardianship of her father into the Baroda territory in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse, under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. With the other charge we are no longer concerned. All the accused except the appellant were acquitted, and it was definitely found by the trial Judge that Hari had nothing to do with the kidnapping, that is, kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It is clear from the evidence relating to the movements of this girl that she first left her father's house on the 25th of January and that she was taken to different places at Napa and Vadtal. She was taken to Asodar by Shankar to Hari's house on the 6th February. Shankar, Haribhai and the girl left Asodar for Baroda and they were arrested in the Baroda territory on the 7th of February. It is not...
Emperor Vs. Hari Ramji Pavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR365
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused was charged with Committing the murder of a boy named Vishwas on the 13th of August last, the murder having been caused by drowning the boy in a river. He was tried by the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar, who, in agreement with the assessors, has found him guilty. He has been sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court.2. We have heard full arguments in this case. The case for the prosecution depends mainly upon the evidence of the witnesses, Daji and three boys, Babaji, Farya and Bhika, and upon certain circumstances.3. It will be convenient at the outset to deal with the point about which we felt some difficulty and on which we invited arguments at the bar. That relates to the admissibility of the evidence of these three boys. Two of them are seven years old and one of them is nine years old, and we find it stated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that ' an oath was not tendered to the boys as they appeared to be too young to ...
Emperor Vs. Abas Mirza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR376
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused was originally charged under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code with driving a motorcar on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life; but the learned Magistrate finds that the evidence shows that the accused was not to blame for the collision which in fact occurred and that the charge under Section 279 cannot be sustained. He, however, proceeded against the accused with the charge of doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others under Section 336, Indian Penal Code.2. The act complained of here is that the accused drove his car without wearing his spectacles which he was required to wear by the license under which he drove the car. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that under the circumstances his omission to wear the spectacles at the time of driving the car was sufficient to endanger human life. From the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate and fr...
Gopal Anant Bhagvat Vs. Bhagirthi Gopal Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom152; (1918)20BOMLR681
Stanley Batchelor Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this appeal there is only one point which arises for our decision, and that is as to the legal position of these parties in regard to the lands which came into the possession of the defendants by purchase from occupancy tenants. It is the plaintiff-appellant's case that these lands have been accessions to the mortgaged property, since the purchase by the defendants from the occupancy tenants was without the consent of the Khot, so that the lands became forfeitable at the option of the Khot. It is not denied that as a matter of fact no consent of the Khot was obtained to these alienations. That being so, it appears to me that the law, as it has been laid down by this Court, is in favour of the appellant's argument.2. The village in question is Khadkavli, a village in the Kolaba District. In Hari v. Gangadhar (1916) 18 Bom. L.R. 446 the legal relation between Khots and occupancy tenants in the villages of the Kolaba District was considered by this ...
Hari Ramji Pavar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom212; 45Ind.Cas.497
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused was charged with committing the murder of a boy named Vishwas on the 13th of August last, the murder having been caused by drowning the boy in a river. He was tried by the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar, who, in agreement with the assessors, has found him guilty. He has been sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court.2. We have heard full arguments in this case. The case for the prosecution depends mainly upon the evidence of the witnesses Daji and three boys, Babaji, Parya and Bhika, and upon certain circumstances.3. It will be convenient at the outset to deal with the point about which we felt some difficulty and on which we invited arguments at the Bar. That relates to the admissibility of the evidence of these three boys. Two of them are seven years old and one of them is nine years old, and we find it stated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that 'an oath was not tendered to the boys as they appeared to be too young to un...
Haribhai Dada Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom205; 45Ind.Cas.506
Shah, J.1. The appellant, accused No. 3, along with the other accused, was charged in the lower Court with having conspired and kidnapped the girl Pashi, a minor under sixteen years of age, from the guardianship of her father into the Baroda territory in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse, under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. With the other charge we are no longer concerned. All the accused except the appellant were acquitted, and it was definitely found by the trial Judge that Hari had nothing to do with the kidnapping, that is kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It is clear from the evidence relating to the movements of this girl that she first left her father's house on the 25th of January and that she was taken to different, places at Napa and Vadtal. She was taken to Asodar by Shankar to Hari's house on the 6th February. Shankar, Haribhai and the girl left Asodar for Baroda and they were arrested in the Baroda territory on the 7th of February. It is not...
Abas Mirza Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom230; 45Ind.Cas.509
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused was originally charged under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code with driving a motor car on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life; but the learned Magistrate finds that the evidence shows that the accused was not to blame for the collision which in fact occurred and that the charge under Section 279 cannot be sustained. He, however, proceeded against the accused with the charge of doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others under Section 336, Indian Penal Code.2. The act complained of here is that the accused drove his car without wearing his spectacles which he was required to wear by the license under which he drove the car. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that under the circumstances his omission to wear the spectacles at the time of driving the car was sufficient to endanger human life. From the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate and f...
Bani Ramchandra Salvi Vs. Jayawanti Govind Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom170; (1918)20BOMLR331; 45Ind.Cas.566
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract by which the husband of the defendants agreed to convey to her certain land for a consideration of Rs. 150. Annexed to the contract was a term that in the event of a criminal prosecution for criminal breach of trust instituted by the plaintiff against the said intending vendor not being withdrawn, the contract was not to be enforced. The explanation briefly is this. The plaintiff had previously sold this land to Ramchandra. The agreed price was Rs. 250 in all. Ram-chandra advanced to the plaintiff Rs. 115 to pay off a mortgagee and a further sum of Rs. 135, of which Rs. 100 at any rate was either taken back by Ramchandra or deposited with him by the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff retained Rs. 35, which, with the Rs. 115 paid to the mortgagee, makes Rs. 150. In respect of the other Rs. 100 she complained that after she had deposited it with Ramchandra he criminally misappropriated it in the sense that he withhel...
Hariram Kisniram Vs. Shivbakas Ramchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom178; (1918)20BOMLR327; 45Ind.Cas.592
Beaman, J.1. Adopting the findings of fact such as they are of the Courts below, it appears that in 1893 or thereabouts, roughly nineteen years before suit, the defendant was a tenant at any rate of the house, of which the plaintiff has now taken a permanent lease. While a tenant he built his own house on the adjoining land and put up a stair-case which is the subject-matter of this suit. In all probability the pillar, driven into the land supporting the stair-case, was contemporaneous with the rest of the structure, though the plaintiff has contended, or, at any rate, suggested, that this pillar was put up by his immediate predocessor-in-title only some nine years before suit. In 1905, the plaintiff took a permanent lease of the house which had been in the defendant's ocoupatioa in 1893. He alleges that in 1912 he asked the defendant to pull down the staircase. The defendant refused. Hence his cause of action. He prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »