Mumbai Court June 1920 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.
Emperor Vs. Vrijvallabhdas Jekisondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR904; 58Ind.Cas.152
Shah, J.1. All these applications were admitted on the question of sentence. Under Section 41 of the Indian Factories Act, XII of 1911, if any person is employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of this Act, the occupier and manager shall be jointly and severally liable to a fine which may extend to Rs. 200. In these case's it has been found that twelve different persons were employed or allowed to work contrary to the provisions of the Act, and in respect of each offence the manager and occupier have been separately sentenced. The total fine inflicted on both comes to Rs. 300 for each offence: and the argument for the applicants is that under the section the occupier and manager are jointly and severally liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200. On the other hand it is argued that the occupier and manager are severally liable under the section to pay the maximum fine laid down in the section. This is a penal section and in my opinion it ought to be construed strictly...
Emperor Vs. Vrijvallubhdas Jekisondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom220
Shah, J.1. All these applications were admitted on the question of sentence. Under Section 41 of the Indian Factories Act, XII of 19.11, if any person is employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of this Act, the occupier and manager shall be jointly and severally liable to a line which may extend to Rs. 200. In these cases it has, been found that 12 different persons were employed or allowed to work contrary to the provisions of the Act, and in respect of each offence the manager and occupier have been separately sentenced. The total fine inflicted on both comes to Rs. 300 for each offence; and the argument for the applicants is that under the section the occupier and manager are jointly and severally liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200. On the other hand it is argued that the occupier and manager are severally liable under the section to pay the maximum fine laid down in the section. This is a penal section, and in my opinion it ought to be construed strictly. ...
Gurunath Keshav Kalkundri and Balakam Gopal Kalkundri Vs. Sadashiv Bal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom251; (1920)22BOMLR1190
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there was a mortgage in 1885 for Rs. 3,000. It was stated in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee should be in possession and receive the profits in lieu of interest on Rs. 2700 out of Rs. 3,000 leaving the balance of Us. 300 to carry interest. In 1891 a fresh advance of Rs. 700 was made on a bond at 15 per cent, per annum interest. In the same way in 189.5 another advance of Rs. 200 was obtained on a third bond. The learned Judge in the trial Court took an account under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and found that nothing was due. He found as a fact that when the second advance of Rs. 700 was made the previous loan had not been paid only, and so again when the third advance of Rs. 200 was made in 1895, the transaction was still open between the parties. Therefore he took an account under the provisions of s 11 on the footing that there was a series of transactions between the parties, which together amounted to one se...
Shekh Hasan Gulam MohidIn Vs. Mahomed Ali Shekh Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1183
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit for redemption and he was met with the plea of res judicaia. This plea has succeeded in both the lower Courts; and in this second appeal the plaintiff has urged that both the lower Courts are wrong in the view which they have taken as to the plea of res judicata.2. The facts relating to the previous suit are that the present plaintiff had filed the suit for redemption of the same mortgage in the year 1914. That suit was decided on the merits against him. He appealed to the District Court. The appeal was admitted and notices were served upon the then respondents, who are the present defendants. In the course of the appeal an application was made by the plaintiff to the appellate Court asking for leave to withdraw from the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. The order made on the application runs as follows:--'The opposite party has no objection. Plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the suit and to ...
Shekh Hassan Walad Gulam MohidIn Tisekar Vs. Mahomed Ali Alias Nana Wa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom278; (1921)ILR45Bom206
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit for redemption and he was met with the plea of res judicata. This plea has succeeded in both the lower Courts; and in this second appeal the plaintiff has urged that both the lower Courts are wrong in the view which they have taken as to the plea of res judicata.2. The facts relating to the previous suit are that the present plaintiff had filed the suit for redemption of the same mortgage in the year 1914. That suit was decided on the merits against him. He appealed to the District Court. The appeal was admitted and notices were served upon the then respondents, who are the present defendants. In the course of the appeal an application was made by the plaintiff to the appellate Court asking for leave to withdraw from the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. The order made on the application runs as follows: 'The opposite party has no objection. Plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the suit and to s...
Girjashankar Daji Bhat Vs. Murlidhar Narayan Chaudhari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom234
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an injunction restraining the defendants from prohibiting plaintiff from officiating in his Vritti as Upadhyaya among the Patidar Gujarathis of Yeola, and from receiving the perquisites of the Vritti. The plaintiff alleged that he was the hereditary priest of the caste and had a right to officiate in the Yajman Vritti as such priest; that he had officiated in the Vritti till Pausha of Samvat 1962; that the defendants asked him to do certain acts prejudicial to his Vritti; that the plaintiff refused to do these acts, and thereupon the defendants issued an illegal order to their friends and caste men that they should not allow the plaintiff to officiate in his Vritti and pay the perquisites to him. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction. He succeeded in the lower Court. That decision was reversed in appeal, the Court finding that although the plaintiff was the hereditary priest of Yeola, his continuance or removal from ...
Emperor Vs. Bhagvan Krishna Thorat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom249; (1920)22BOMLR892
Shah, J.1. In this case the Second Class Magistrate of Barsi convicted the accused, who pleaded guilty, under Section 62 of the Bombay District Police Act (IV of 1690), and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5. The District Magistrate has made a reference to this Court recommending that the conviction and sentence should be set aside.2. The reference is based firstly on the ground that the Second Class Magistrate had no jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bombay District Police Act as he was not specially authorised to try offences under that section. But we find that the section is amended by Bombay Act III of 1915 whereby the word 'second' is substituted for the word 'first' in Sub-section 2 of Section 62. The effect of the modification is that the Second Class Magistrate without being specially invested with jurisdiction under the section would be competent to try offences punishable under that section. That ground therefore is not sustainable.3. The second ground is that the Preve...
Kasturbhai Manibhai Vs. Hiralal Dahyabhai and S.R. Davar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom307; (1920)22BOMLR926; 58Ind.Cas.69
Setalvad, J.1. The plaintiffs who are merchants and mill agents doing extensive business have their office in a building situated in Church Gate Street in the city of Bombay which building has been acquired by the Municipality for the purpose of widening the said Street and the Municipality have asked it the plaintiffs to vacate the said building. On the correspondent between the plaintiff's and the Municipality, the situation appears to be that the plaintiffs are in their present office on sufferance and are under an obligation to vacate on fortnight's notice from the Municipality. The plaintiffs- part-owners of a building situated at Esplanade Road in the at of Bombay. A portion of. the second floor of this building occupied by the. defendant in suit No. 3671 of 1919 who is a attorney of this Court, for the purposes of his office, an; the rest of the said floor is occupied by the defendant in Suit No. 3672 of 1919 for the purposes of his Colleague Conidia. The defendants have been te...
Emperor Vs. Bhagwan Krishna Thorat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom203
1. In this case the Second Class Magistrate of Bars convicted the accused, who pleaded guilty, under Section 62 of the Bombay District Police Act (IV of 1890), and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5. The District Magistrate has made a reference to this Court recommending that the conviction and sentence should be set aside.2. The reference is based firstly on the ground that the Second Class Magistrate had no jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bombay District Police Act as he was not specially authorised to try offences under that section. But we find that the section is amended by Bombay Act III of 1915 whereby the word 'second' is substituted for the word 'first' in Sub-section 2 of Section 62. The effect of the modification is that the Second Class Magistrate without being specially invested with jurisdiction under the section would be competent to try offences punishable under that section. That ground therefore is not sustainable.3. The second ground is that the Prevention of ...
Mangaldas Girdhardas Parekh Vs. the Assistant Collector of Prantij Pra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom277
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act from the award made by the District Judge of Ahmedabad to whom a reference was made at the instance of the claimant, who is the appellant before us.2. The property with which we are concerned is bungalow No. 33 with the compound and out-houses which formed part of the Andheri Bagh. The property in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and a declaration under Section 6 was made on the 29th of April 1913. Under that declaration three bungalows Nos. 33, 34 and 35 with the lands appurtenant to these bungalows and out-houses were acquired. It was declared that for residences of Government Officers in the Ahmedabad Cantonment the superstructures on the land specified together with all such rights, if any, over the sites thereof were required within the limits of the Ahmedabad Cantonment. The total area of the land with reference to the bungalow No. 33 is stated in the declaration to be 36, 137 square yards 7 square fe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »