Mumbai Court October 1920 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Purshottam Ishvar Amin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1
Pratt, J.1. The questions referred for decision to the Full Bench are:-1. Whether a statement recorded by any Magistrate in the course of a police investigation under Section 164., Criminal Procedure Code, is evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193, Indian Penal Code, Explanation 2 ?2. Whether such a statement can be said to be evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding if the Magistrate who records it has no jurisdiction to inquire into or try the case ?3. Whether, if such a statement is not evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding, but comes within the meaning of the words 1 evidence in any other case ', in Section 193, Indian Penal Code, it can be linked with a statement which is evidence in a stage of the judicial proceeding following on the investigation so that the two can be said to be a series of acts on which an alternative charge can be framed under Section 236, Criminal Procedure Code, of intentionally giving false evidence ?4. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom119; (1921)23BOMLR139; 60Ind.Cas.964
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners were assessed on the 30th October 1919 under the Excess Profits Duty Act (X of 1919) in the amount of Rs. 6,48,379-4-0 and received due notice thereof from the Collector of Income Tax (Exh. B). Thereupon the petitioners presented an appeal against the said assessment to the Chief Revenue-Authority claiming that they were entitled to be held exempt from assessment. The appeal was heard on the 3rd August 192O when the assessment of the Collector of Income Tax was confirmed. The petitioners requested the Chief Revenue-Authority to state a case for the opinion of the High Court but on the 11th August the Chief Revenue-Authority wrote that a reference to the High Court had been deemed unnecessary.2. On the 20th August the petitioners obtained a rule calling upon the Chief Revenue-Authority to show cause why he should not Bombay be orderd to refer to this Hon'ble Court for its decision the questions set out in Exh. D to the petition, and the questi...
Tag this Judgment!Kandarao Vithoba Kore Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom230; (1921)23BOMLR361
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Since the year 1913 the Municipal Corporation of Bombay, hereinafter called ' the Corporation,' have been considering the question of the development of the Mahim District by the laying out and widening of roads and by the provision of open spaces for the use and recreation of the inhabitants of the District and of the City in general.2. At a meeting of the Corporation held on the 30th July 1920 the following resolution was carried :That the 71st report dated the 28th February 1920 of the Roads Committee reconstituted by Corporation Resolution No. 175 dated the 3rd April 1919 regarding the acquisition of frontages in connection with (1) the proposed extension of De Lisle Road northwards to Lady Jamsetji Road and (2) the widening of Lady Jamsetji Road to Bandra Causeway be approved and adopted and a copy be forwarded to the Commissioner for information and necessary action. (2) That certain letters received from various associations on the subject be recorded...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Excess Profits Duty Act, 1919
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom881
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners were assessed on the 30th October 1919 under the Excess Profits Duty Act X of 1919 in the amount of Rs. 6,48,379-4-0 and received due notice thereof from the Collector of Income Tax (Exhibit B). Thereupon the petitioners presented an appeal against the said assessment to the Chief Revenue-Authority claiming that they were entitled to be held exempt from assessment. The appeal was heard on the 3rd August 1920 when, the assessment of the Collector of Income Tax was confirmed. The petitioners requested the Chief Revenue-Authority to state a case for the opinion of the High Court but on the 11th August the Chief Revenue-Authority wrote that a reference to the High Court had been deemed unnecessary.2. On the 20th August, the petitioners obtained a rule calling upon the Chief Revenue-Authority to show cause why he should not be ordered to refer to this-Honourable Court for its decision the questions set out ill Exhibit D to the petition, and the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dinanath Sundraji Ravte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR338
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged with the offence of murder before the Sessions Judge of Thana sitting with a Jury. There was an unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the accused was sentenced to transportation for life. In appeal it has been contended that the confession should not have been admitted in evidence and placed before the Jury, as it was not relevant under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the confession itself had been free of all defect, and then in the Sessions Court had been retracted, and the accused had made allegations that the confession had been made under inducement, then it would be a question for the Court to consider whether or not the confession was relevant; and it seems as if the learned Judge in directing the Jury had considered himself free to consider whether the confession was relevant under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act,. But on reading the confession, it appears that the accused told t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tuka Nana Ramoshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom68; (1921)23BOMLR347
Shah, J.1. The assused No. 2 in this case has been convicted of robbery under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months by the trial Magistrate, though he is a member of a criminal tribe, and though he was once previously convicted in April 1903 and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 by the Sessions Court of Satara.2. The District Magistrate has made a reference to this Court recommending that the conviction and sentence be set aside and that the accused No. 2 be committed to the Court of Session for trial, in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Criminal Tribes Act (III of 1911).3. We have to consider tirst whether Section 23(1), Clause (a) applies to this cafe, and, secondly, if it applies, whether, under the circumstances, it is necessary to give effect to the District Magistrate's recommendation.4. As regards the construction of Section 23, which is not quite easy, I am of opinion that thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Motibhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs. Nathabhai Narayanbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom187; (1921)23BOMLR444
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under the civil extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff filed au administration suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased Manorbhai against the defendant who, it is alleged, had taken possession of the whole of the property of the deceased together with the documents, papers and account books relating thereto, A preliminary decree was passed directing an account to be taken of the estate of the deceased. An administrator was appointed to take evidence and to report as to the nature of the properties and the rights of the parties thereto. The administrator made an inquiry and filed a report. Objections were raised by the parties to that report, and in the course of the argument the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with certain property on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with any properties in his possession which he contended did not belong to the estate of...
Tag this Judgment!Motibhai Shankerbhai Patel Vs. Nathabhai Naranbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1053
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under the civil extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff filed an administration suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased Manorbhai against the defendant who, it is alleged, had taken possession of the whole of the property of the deceased together with the documents, papers and account books relating thereto. A preliminary decree was passed directing an account to be taken of the estate of the deceased. An administrator was appointed to take evidence and to report as to the nature of the properties and the rights of the parties thereto. The administrator made and inquiry and filed a report. Objections were raised by the parties to that report, and in the course of the argument the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with certain property on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with any properties in his possession which he contended did not belong to the estate o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dinanath Sundarji Ravte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1086
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged with the offence of murder before the Sessions Judge of Thana sitting with a Jury. There was an unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the accused was sentenced to transportation for life. In appeal it has been contended that the confession should not have been admitted in evidence and placed before the Jury, as it was not relevant under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the confession itself had been free of all defects, and then in the Sessions Court had been retracted, and the accused had made allegations that the confession had been made under inducement, then it would be a question for the Court to consider whether or not the confession was relevant; and it seems as if the learned Judge in directing the Jury had considered himself free to consider whether the confession was relevant under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. But on reading the confession, it appears that the accused told t...
Tag this Judgment!Dinanath Sundraji Ravte Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.1006
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged with the offence of murder before the Sections Judge of Thana sitting with a Jury There was an unanimous verdict of guilt; under Section 302, Indian Penal code, and the accused was sentenced to transportation for life. In appeal it has been contended that the confession should not have beer admitted in evidence and placed before the Jury, as it was not relevant under Section 24 of the Indian evidence Act. If the confession itself had been free of M defects, and then in the Sessions Court had been retracted, and the accused had made allegations that the confession had been made under inducement, then it would be a question for the court to consider whether or not the confession was relevant; and it seems as if the learned Judge in directing the Jury had considered himself free to consider whether the confession was relevant under Section 24 of the Indian evidence Act. But on reading the confession, it appears that the accused told the Magis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »