Mumbai Court April 1919 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.
Byramji Pudumji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom172; 52Ind.Cas.665
Heaton, J.1. The only point, as to which it is necessary for us to express an opinion, is the meaning of Rule 97 of the Cantonment Code of 1912. Rule 97 runs as follows:Where any building;, wall or structure, or anything affixed thereto, or any bank or tree, is, in the opinion of the Cantonment authority, in a ruinous state or in any way dangerous either, in the case of an occupied building, to the occupier or to the publics, the Cantonment authority may, by notice in writing, require the owner or occupier thereof forthwith either to remove the same or to cause such repairs to be made as it may think necessary for the safety of the occupier or of the public, etc.2. The point arises in this way: The Cantonment authority sent a notice under this section to the applicant to remove a building, and the applicant says that the notice was not a legal notice, because under the section it had to be a notice to him, he argues, either to remove or to cause repairs to be made. So we have to choose...
Emperor Vs. Byramji Pudumji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom838
Heaton, J.1. The only point as to which it is necessary for us to express an opinion, is the meaning of Rule 97 of the Cantonment Code of 1912. Rule 97 runs as follows:Where any building wall or structure, or anything affixed thereto, or any bank or tree, is, in the opinion of the Cantonment authority, in a ruinous state or in any way dangerous either, in the case of an occupied building, to the occupier or to the public, the Cantonment authority may, by notice in writing, require the owner or occupier thereof forthwith either to remove the same or to cause such repairs to be made as it may think necessary for the safety of the occupier or of the public, &c.;2. The point arises in this way. The Cantonment authority sent a notice under this section to the applicant to remove a building and the applicant says that the notice was not a legal notice, because under the section it had to be a notice to him, he argues, either to remove or to cause repairs to be made. So we have to choose betw...
Emperor Vs. Byramji Pudumji (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR759
Heaton, J.1. It is urged-and I think correctly urged- that the order made by the District Magistrate of Poona fining the applicant is, in the form it took, illegal. The order was made under the provisions of Rule 107A of the Cantonment Code. It was proved to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate on 27th of October 1918 that the owner of a house in the Poona Cantonment had persisted in failure to carry out an order made under Rule 97, and taking the words of Rule 107A, he was punishable with a fine not exceeding Rs. 5 for every day after the first in regard to which he was convicted of having persisted in the failure. He could of course be convicted with having persisted in the failure only as regards the past; he could not be convicted of a failure in regard to the future. A fine of Rs. 5 a day therefore might have been imposed for the material days up to the 27th of October. But that was not done. The District Magistrate, taking, I have no doubt, a sensible broad view of the aff...
Emperor Vs. Byramji Pudumji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom836
Heaton, J.1. It is urged--and I think correctly urged--that the order made by the District Magistrate of Poona fining the applicant is, in the form it took, illegal. The order was made under the provisions of Rule 107A of the Cantonment Code. It was proved to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate on the 27th of October 1918 that the owner of a house in the Poona Cantonment had persisted in failure to carry out an order made under Rule 97, and, taking the words of Rule 107A, he was punishable with a fine not exceeding Rs. 5 for every day after the first in regard to which he was convicted of having persisted in the failure. He could of course be convicted with having persisted in the failure only as regards the past; he could hot be convicted of a failure in regard to the future. A fine of Rs. 5 a day therefore might have been imposed for the material days up to the 27th of October. But that was not done. The District Magistrate, taking, I have no doubt, a sensible broad view of t...
Byramji Pudumji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom28(1); 52Ind.Cas.288
Heaton, J.1. It is urged--and I think correctly urged--that the order made, by the District Magistrate of Poona fining the applicant is, in the form it took, illegal. The order was made under the provisions of Rule 107A. of the Cantonment Code. It was proved to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate on 27th of October 1918 that the owner of a house in the Poona Cantonment had persisted in failure to carry out an order made under Rule 97, and taking the words of Rule 107A, he was punishable with a fine not exceeding Rs. 5 for every day after the first in regard to which he was convicted of having persisted in the failure. He could, of course, be convicted with having persisted in the failure only as regards the past; he could not be convicted of a failure in regard to the future. A fine of Rs. 5 a day, therefore, might have been imposed for the material days up to the 27th of October. But that was not done. The District Magistrate, taking, I have no doubt, a sensible broad view of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›