Mumbai Court May 1919 Judgments
Sunitabala Debi Vs. Dharasundari Debi Chowdhurani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1
Buckmaster, J.1. The history of this case is the history of a family dispute between the appellant-a pardanashin lady, the daughter of one Strut Chandra Roy Chowdhury, and the respondents, who are his two widows. After the death of Strut Chowdhury, the respondents applied for a grant of letters of administration of his estate with a will annexed, the will being dated the 22nd November 1903, the date of his death. The appellant, as the daughter of the deceased and devisee under an earlier will, opposed this application. The District Judge refused the grant, holding that the alleged will was not genuine, and the respondents appealed to the High Court. While this appeal was pending, the Administrator-General of Bengal as executor applied for probate 'of an earlier will dated the 21st September, 1892. By the terms of this will the appellant would take the whole property of the testator, subject to certain small provisions for maintenance in favor of the first respondent and of another wife...
Tag this Judgment!Texas Company Vs. Bombay Banking Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR429
Buckmaster, J.1. The appellants are a Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas in the United States of America, and either owning or having control over extensive oil fields. Their head office for India is in Bombay, and for the purpose of securing distribution of kerosene oil throughout the district of Bengal, they entered into an agreement in writing, on October 25, 1911, with one Prabhakar Govind Vaidya, whereby he was appointed for five years their exclusive agent for the sale of such oil within named areas on certain specified terms.2. So far as they are material to the present dispute, these terms provided that, on receipt by the company of an order from the agent for kerosene oil, they would give to him a delivery order for the quantity required in exchange for a deposit by him with the company of such an amount of certain specified securities as should, at the market rate at the date of the deposit, represent 5 per cent, excess of the market rate of the oi...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Annie Besant Vs. the Advocate General of Madras
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR867
Phillimore, J.1. These are two appeals for which the appellant, Mrs., Besant, obtained special leave from His Majesty in Council against two decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.2. They arise in the following circumstances :-There are in India two legislative Acts of the Governor-General of India in Council relating to printing, one being The Printing Presses and Newspapers Act No. XXV of 1S67. and the other being Act No. I of 1910 entitled 'An Act to provide for the better control of the Press, ' and shortly ' The Indian Press Act, 1910. ' Under the first Act, Section 4, the person who keeps in his possession a printing press must make and subscribe a declaration before a Magistrate, stating that he has a press for printing, and where it is situated. And by Section 5 no printed periodical work containing public news, or comments on public news, shall be published without the printer and publisher making a declaration stating that he is the printer or publisher, the name...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Jeypore Vs. Vikrama Deo Garu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR930
Viscount Cave, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Madras, which affirmed, with a variation, the decree of the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam. dated the 22nd December, 1909.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, who is the cousin of ' the first defendant the Maharajah of Jeypore, for maintenance out of the impartible estate held by the defendant. In consequence of previous decisions of the Courts, the case took a course which makes it impossible finally to determine the matter today.3. The plaintiff in the notion rested his case upon the contention that, according to the general Hindu law, he, as the son of a brother of the late Maharajah, Was entitled to maintenance out of the estate. The defendants in their statements, proceeded more or less upon the same basis, but alleged a special custom which deprived the plaintiff of that which was treated as being his primd facie right.4. Upon that, issues were framed, the important issues being the third and four...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dhondya Dudya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom173; (1919)21BOMLR768
Macleod, J.1. This is a report by the District Magistrate of Belgaum under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the case of the accused Dhondya bin Dudya a boy aged nine years who has been convicted by the Cantonment Magistrate of Belgaum after a summary trial of an offence under Section 130 of the Indian Railways Act of 1890.2. The District Magistrate considers that as the act which the boy committed, viz., putting a nail on a railway line, amounted to an offence under Section 126(a) of the Indian Railways Act, the case was triable only by a Court of Session.3. We think it clear that Section 130 enacts an offence distinct from the offences in Sections, 126 to 129. A minor who is entitled to the benefit of Section 82 or Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code does not commit an offence when he is guilty of any of the acts or omissions referred to in Sections 12b to 129. It is Section 130 which by excluding the operation of these exceptions creates the offence.4. No doubt if the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dhondya Dudhya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom888
Macleod, J.1. This is a report by the District Magistrate of Belgaum under Section 438 of the Criminal. Procedure Code of the case of the accused Dhondya bin Dudhya a boy aged nine years who has been convicted by the Cantonment Magistrate of Belgaum after a summary trial of an offence under Section 130 of the Indian Railways Act of 1890.2. The District Magistrate considers that, as the act which the boy committed, viz., putting a nail on a railway line, amounted to an offence under Section 126(a) of the Indian Railways Act, the case was triable only by a Court of Session.3. We think it clear that Section 130 enacts an offence distinct from the offences in Sections 126 to 129. A minor who is entitled to the benefit of Section 82 or Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code does not commit an offence when he is guilty of any of the acts or omissions referred to in Sections 126 to 129. It is Section 130 which by excluding the operation of these exceptions creates the offence.4. No doubt if the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›