Mumbai Court March 1921 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. Gangappa Irappa Sarwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR833
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused were charged with the offence of assault under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code before a Bench of Magistrates of Bijapur. After several hearings the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under Section 352 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 125. It appears that the trial began before six Magistrates, but one of them withdrew from the trial and took no further part in it. One of the five remaining Magistrates, Mr. Raghoji, was absent during part of the trial. Eventually he with three other Magistrates who had been sitting throughout the trial signed the order convicting the accused, while the fifth Magistrate, Mr. Chunilal, who had also been there throughout, withdrew from sitting in the Court. Two difficulties arise in the construction of the rules for the guidance of the Magistrates which are before us, which were sanctioned by the Government Resolution No. 3447 of 19th May 1916.2. Rule 4 says that ' the Bench in session shall ordinarily consis...
Narayan Moreshwar Welankar Vs. Waman Mahadeo Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom17
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this Second Appeal are not in dispute. The following table shows the relationship of the parties concerned: Kashinath _________________________________|__________________________________ | |Yajneswara=Gangabai Raoji ___|__________________________________________________ | | | | | Moreshwar.Ganesh=Savitribai Vinayak Yeshwant Shankar ___________|_____ (pre-deceased) (pre-deed.) (pre-deed.) (adopted by | | Yajneswara's Madhav Narayan. widow) (Given in (Plff.) | adoption Krishnabai to Yajnes- wara's widow and named Shankar)The property in suit belonged to Yajneswara who died leaving a widow, Gangabai, and a pre-deceased son's widow, Savitribai. After his death Gangabai adopted the natural brother of the present plaintiff from the other branch. It is common ground that after the death of Shankar and his widow in 1909, the property was vested absolutely in Shankar's daughter, Krishnabai, who was a few months old then. She died a few months after ...
Narayan Moreshwar Welankar Vs. Waman Mahadev Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR587
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are not in dispute. The following table shows the relationship of the parties concerned:- Kashinath __________________________|_______________________________________ | | Yajnesvara=Gangabai Raoji | | ____________|______________________________________ | | | | | Moreshwar Ganesh=Savitribai Vinayak. Yeshwant Shankar. __________|________ (Predeceased) (pre-decd.) (pre-decd.) (adopted by | | Yajnesvara's Madhav Narayan Widow) Given in (Plff.) | adoption | to Yajnesvar's Krishnabai and named Shankar.)2. The property in suit belonged to Yajneshvara who died leaving a widow, Gangabai, and a pre-deceased son's widow, Savitribai After his death Gangabai adopted the natural brother of the present plaintiff from the other branch. It is common ground that after the death of Shankar and his widow in 1909, the property was vested absolutely in Shankar's daughter, Krishnabai, who was a few months old then. She died a few months after ...
B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. Dayaram Bechardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR583
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant railway company for the loss of six bags of sugar which were consigned from Bombay to Broach. There is no doubt that six bags out of sixteen were delivered short. The consignor plaintiff had signed the risk note in the form H so if the goods were short-delivered, he had to prove that the loss was due to wilful neglect on the part of the railway company's servants. Undoubtedly there is often a difficulty in proving wilful neglect because the only evidence of wilful neglect is the evidence which can be extracted in cross-examination from the witnesses for the defence. The guard of the train proved that the seals of the wagon were intact at Ankleshwar and also at the Narbada bridge cabin where the train stopped to let the Express pass. When he got to Broach he found the seals broken. He resealed the waggon which was taken off at Broach, but he did not make any report to the Station Master. The Judge finds on that evidence that i...
Vishvanath Ganesh Javdekar Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom73(1); (1921)23BOMLR809
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a pleader residing at Dhulia. On the 2nd March 1917 he took a third class ticket for Bhusawal at the Dhulia Station, He took his seat naturally, so the plaint says, in the third class compartment reserved for Europeans and Anglo-Indians of the railway train which was to start from Dhulia on the same evening. The Station Master thereafter illegally asked the plaintiff to quit the carriage on the ground that the said compartment was reserved by the Railway Company for Europeans and Anglo-Indians. The plaintiff, thereupon, in order to avoid disturbance, reluctantly got out of the carriage and took his seat in another compartment. He then filed this suit to recover from the defendant Railway Company Rs. 5 as damages and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Railway Company from preventing the plaintiff from entering a compartment of a railway carriage reserved for Europeans and Anglo-Indians.2. The defendant Company by its writ...
Alcock Ashdown Company Ltd. Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1132
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners applied to this Court for an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Co-Revenue Authority to refer a case for the decision of the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act VII of 1918.The application was refused and the petitioners now ask us to grant them leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It has been contended for the opponents that no appeal lies from a decision of the Court refusing to make an order under Section 45.2. Section 48 says :-Every order under this Chapter shall be executed, and may be appealed from, as if it) were a decree made in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.3. Section 49 says :-The costs of all applications and orders under this Chapter shall be in the discretion of the High Court.4. It would certainly appear at first sight that Section 48 only contemplated that orders directing an act to be done or forborne should be appealable as ...
Meka Venkatadri Appa Row Vs. Parthasarathi Appa Row
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR644
Buckmastsr, J.1. Their Lordships do not desire to hear counsel for the appellants in reply, nor do they need further time to consider the advice that they will tender to His Majesty, for in their opinion this case is quite plain. It appears that in 1899 the respondent instituted a suit the defendants to which are represented by the present appellants; he claimed partition of two estates, known as the Nidadavole Estate and the Medur Estate, asserting that ho was entitled to a one-third share in each. The District Judge, by whom the action was first heard, decreed in the plaintiff's favour with regard to the first estate, but against him with regard to the other. An appeal was taken from that decree to the High Court who varied it by declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to one-third of the second estate as well as of the first. A receiver having been appointed of the rents of both estates on the 14th February, 1907, the plaintiff obtained an order enabling the receiver to pay over t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›