Mumbai Court July 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.
Dhondo Vasudev Kanitkar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom110
Shah, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal is whether Section 217 of the Land Revenue Code applies when a survey settlement is introduced into an alienated village with the consent of the alienee under Bombay Act I of 1865 and when the period of the settlement has expired after the Land Revenue Code of 1879 came into force. It is conceded, that if this point is decided against the appellant, the other points decided against him by the lower Court need not be gone into. We have therefore heard the pleaders on this point only : and as we have come to the conclusion-that Section 217 would apply to such a village, it has not been necessary to hear the appellant's pleader on the other points.2. The facts relating to this point are few and undisputed. The survey settlement was extended to the village in question on the application of the Inamdar in the year 1870 under Bombay Act I of 1865 which was then in force. The period of this settlement expired in the year 1888. in 1879, the Land ...
Tipangavda Sandawangavda Gavdar Vs. Ramangavda Venkangavda Gavdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR35
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was an application by the judgment-debtor to have an auction sale held by the Mamlatdar of Hangal set aside under Order XXI, Rule 89, on the ground that he had deposited in the Mamlatdar's office Rs. 154-12-10, including five per cent of the purchase money, and had applied to the Maralatdar to set aside the sale that was held on the 15th April 1915, but was referred to the Civil Court, As the Court was closed and reopened on the 19th May, the period of limitation expired on the 19th May, but the application was not made until the 13th July. It was then argued that the application to set aside the sale made to the Mamlatdar was an application to the Court, and that therefore it was within time. The trial Judge disallowed the application, and this order was reversed on appeal mainly on the authority of Mathuji v. Korbdaji (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 263 where it was held by the Court that the application and deposit to a Revenue Officer should be looked to on the ...
Vanichand Rajpal Vs. Lakhmichand Maneckchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR955
Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Mr, Justice Pratt on an application made by the plaintiffs on motion that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit the defendants, his servants and agents, might be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honourable Court from prosecuting the suit filed by him against the plaintiff' in the Court of the Morvi State. The learned Judge held that the motion failed and directed the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the motion.2. A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies against that order. It is admitted that the appeal could only lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and that therefore no appeal lie, unless the order can be considered as a judgment. A 'judgment' in Clause 15, according to the decision in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Company (1872) 8 Bong. L.R. 433, which has been followed in this Court, means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parti...
Emperor Vs. Chatur Natha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1101
Shah, J.1. In this case in spite of the argument, to the contrary, we are satisfied that accused No. 2 did cause injury to the baby, which resulted in its death. There is clear evidence in the case that accused No. 2 dealt the blow and there is no reason to distrust the evidence which has been believed by the trial Judge and the assessors. The question, however, as to what offence has been committed by the appellant is one of some difficulty. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that it was not likely that the blow would have caused the death of an adult, but it might well have caused grievous hurt. On that basis, he found that the accused No. 2 was guilty of causing grievous hurt. The circumstances under which this blow came to be inflicted are briefly these. The woman with the child in her hand intervened apparently unexpectedly in the course of a scuffle between accused No. 2 and his party on the one hand and her husband and his brother on the other hand. It was about the middl...
Desai Venechand Rajpal and ors. Vs. Lakhmichand Manekchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom272
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Pratt on an application, made by the plaintiffs on motion that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit the defendant, his servants and agents, might be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honourable Court from prosecuting the suit filed by him against the plaintiffs in the Court of the Morvi State. The learned Judge held that the motion-failed and directed the plaintiffs to pay the costs.2. A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal lies against that order. It is admitted that the appeal could only lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that therefore no appeal lies, unless the order can be considered as a judgment. A 'judgment' Clause 15, according to the decision in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. The Oriental Gas Company (1872) 8 Ben. L.R. 433, which has been followed in this Court, means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by deter...
Emperor Vs. Maruti Santu More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1065
Shah, J.1. In this case two persons were charged in connection with the murder of a Forest-guard named Aba Gudhan, accused No. 1, with the murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and accused No. 2 with the abetment thereof under Sections 302, and 114, Indian Penal Code and with causing the evidence of murder tO disappear under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Satara with the aid of assessors. The assessors were of opinion that accused No. 1 was guilty of murder and that accused No. 2 was not guilty of the abetment thereof; but they were divided in opinion as to the guilt of accused No. 2 on the charge under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge found that the charge against accused No. 1 was not established, and accordingly acquitted him. He also found that the charge of the abetment of murder against accused No. 2 was not proved and acquitted him of that charge; he found him guilty under Section 201 and sentenced him ...
Kering Rupchand and Co. Vs. A.S.B. Bayley
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1126; 58Ind.Cas.433
Pratt, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiff', a Poona money lender, seeks to recover on a bond executed by the defendant on the 7th of September 1918. The consideration of the bond is a cash advance of Rs. 5000 and the obligor agrees to repay Rs. 8400, i. e., Rs. 5000 principal and Rs. 3400 interest. The interest is assessed at 2 per cent. per mensem, i. e., Rs. 100 a month for Rs. 5,000; and it is calculated in advance for thirty-four months. The total amount of Rs. 8400 is then repayable in thirty-three installments of Rs. 250 and one 34th installment of Rs. 150. Thus the principal is repaid in thirty-three installments of Rs. 150 and one installment of Rs. 50 and the interest is repaid in thirty-four installments of Rs. 100.2. The first three installments have been recovered by a suit in the Court of Small Causes. The present suit is for six installments from January to June 1919.3. The defendant does not appear but, though the suit is ex parte, the Court has, under Section 3 (1) of the...
Bilasirai Laxminarayan Vs. Cursondas Damodardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR952
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This suit was called on for hearing on the 7th of January 1919, when counsel, who had been instructed on behalf of the plaintiff, finding that his client was not in Court to give evidence, asked for an adjournment. The defendant appeared and opposed the application, which was refused, and thereafter the suit was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8. The plaintiff then asked for the restoration of the suit on the grounds mentioned in his affidavit of the 21st of January 1919. In para 4 he said :I say that I could not attend the Court in time as I had been that morning to the firm of Messrs. Sadnsukh Gambhirchand to bring with me to Court Mr. Revamal Kasturchand the Moonim of the said firm who is my principal witness in this suit. I had been to the said firm to fetch the Moonim at about 11 A. M. but was told that the Moonim was out and would soon return. As I was told that he would soon return I waited for him. The said Moonim returned about 12-30 noon and soon after h...
Raoji Bhikaji Kondkar Vs. Laxmibai Anant Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR243; 55Ind.Cas.972
Shah, J.1. This is art application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decree of this Court in First Appeal No. 130 of 1916 on the ground that the requirements of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code are satisfied.2. In the suit as originally brought the plaintiff claimed one-half share in the family property and valued it at Es. 12,000. The defendant No. 1, his uncle, and defendant No. 2, his grand-mother, pleaded that he was entitled only to one-third share. A decree was passed in his favour to the extent of one-third share in the property. After the preliminary decree was passed the defendant No. 2 died and the plaintiff then made an application to have the decree amended by claiming a moiety in the one-third share of his grand-mother. The trial Court held that on her death that share became equally divisible between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal to this Court which related to the one-sixth share which the plaintiff ...
Emperor Vs. Nasir Wazir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1096
Shah, J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted by a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates of ill-treating his horse on the 21st of May last, under Section 3, Clause (a) of Act XI of 1890. His plea of guilty is recorded in these terms: 'I admit having turned my horse out to starve. It was on the road for twenty-five days.' The question in this application is whether the conviction under Section 3(a) is right.2. In substance what the accused did was that he abandoned his horse. After he turned his horse out he apparently exercised no control over the animal and the horse was practically left uncared for in the public streets. The section pro. vides among other things that ' if any person in any street or in any other place, whether open or closed, to which the public have access, or within sight of any person in any street or in any such other place cruelly and unnecessarily beats, overdrives, overloads or otherwise ill-treats any animal,' he shall be liable to punishment by w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »