Mumbai Court June 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.
In Re: Dhondi Nathaji Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom368; (1921)23BOMLR846
Pratt, J.1. In this case the Additional Sessions Judge of Sho lapur convicted the accused on the 19th of August 1919 of the offences under Sections 409 and 467, Indian penal Code, and sentenced him to two years and six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 in each case, sentences to run consecutively. The Sessions Judge omitted to pass a sentence in default of payment of fine. This oversight he purported to correct by a subsequent order of 29th September 1919 imposing three months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. This subsequent order is the subject of a revisional application submitted by the accused. The Sessions Judge had no power to review his order; for Section 869, Criminal Procedure Code, expressly prohibited him from doing so. This had been recognised in Queen-Empress v. queen Empress v. Ganesh Ramkrishna I.L.R (1897) Bom. 50. The proper course would have been for him to submit the proceeding to this Court and ask this Court in its revisional jurisdictio...
In Re: Dagadu Bapu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR839
Pratt, J.1. This is a reference made by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Bombay requesting revision of an order made by him on the 26th November 1920, granting a pardon to an accused Dagdoo Bapu under Section 337, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The offence under inquiry was an offence of murder and the accused was placed before the Magistrate on a charge of that offence on the 7th September 1920. But as the prosecution case was that another accused, Dhondoo Sumbhoo, who had absconded, was the principal offender the pardon was tendered. The principal offender has not been arrested, and it appears there is no prospect of his arrest or trial.3. The prosecution desire the discharge of Dagdu Bapu as) otherwise he would be detained for an indefinite period in the custody as an approver.4. The Magistrate suggests that the pardon was invalid, as it was not tendered for the purpose of an inquiry but for the purpose of securing evidence under Section 512, Criminal Procedure Code. There is no subs...
In Re: Rangubai Gururao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom29; (1921)23BOMLR844
Pratt, J.1. This is an application for revision of: the order made under Section 187 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the first Class Magistrate, Bijapur.2. The order complained of was made on the 11th September 1930. But the proceeding of which that order purported to be the conclusion, was a conditional order under Section 138 made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Bijapur on the 12th February 1919: That, order directed the accused to remove obstruction that they had made to the channel by which water flowed off the public road from Marol to Dhanar within one month, or to appear to-show cause in the Court of the First Class Magistrate &t; Hungund, on the 14th August 1916. The petitioner aver that she did so, and after some evidence was taken, the matter was dropped. It was suddenly revived four years later was the absolute order was made on the 11th September 192Q. The, Government Pleader says that the petitioner failed to appear on the 14th August 1916, but if that were so, one w...
Baban Hemraj Vs. the City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR881
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant Municipality arose under a contract between the parties. The Municipality had entered into that contract under the powers granted to it under Section 40 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The Municipality claimed according to the terms of that contract to deduct a certain amount from the plaintiff's deposit for non-performance of his contract. As the Municipality obtained their powers to enter into this contract from the Act, it follows that their powers to enforce the contract, according to the construction they put upon it, must also be in pursuance of the Act. Therefore, any suit which the plaintiff might wish to bring under the contract would come within the provisions of Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. I think the decision of the lower appellate Court was right and the appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Baswantappa Irappa Desai Vs. Bhimappa Yellappa Koppad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1004
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's right to get water from the land either in the ownership or occupation of the defendants, and Us. 25 as damages. Exhibit 37 is the map prepared by the commissioner which correctly shows the position of the various Survey Numbers mentioned in the case and the water channels. Defendant No. 4 is the owner of Survey No. 91, but has let that Survey Number to defendants Nos. 1-3 who are also the owners of Survey No. 4. The plaintiff was the owner of Survey Nos. 92 and 86.2. The plaintiff's case is that he was entitled as of right to get the rain water which was flowing through Survey No. 91 on to his land by means of existing channels, and that the defendants were not entitled to obstruct the flow of the water through those channels.3. The trial Court decided in favour of the plaintiff, but unfortunately owing to an incorrect map being used, it fo...
In Re: Dagdoo Bapu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom120
1. This is a reference made by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Bombay requesting revision of an order made by him on the 26th November 1920, granting a pardon to an accused Dagdoo Bapu under Section 337, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The offence under inquiry was an offence of murder and the accused was placed before the Magistrate on a charge of that offence on the 7th September 1920. But as the prosecution case was that another accused, Dhondoo Sumbhoo, who had absconded, was the principal offender the pardon was tendered. The principal offender has not been arrested, and it appears there is no prospect of his arrest or trial.3. The prosecution desire the discharge of Dagdoo Bapu as otherwise he would be detained for an indefinite period in the custody as an approver.4. The Magistrate suggests that the pardon was invalid, as it was not tendered for the purpose of an inquiry but for the purpose of securing evidence under Section 512, Criminal Procedure Code. There is no substance in ...
Mahadeo Govind Suktankar Vs. Ramchandra Govind Suktankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR903
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the Assistant Judge at Belgaum to recover mesne profits of certain land for the years 1915-16 and 1916-17. It is admitted that the land is situated in the Kurundwad State outside British India, and that the plaintiff bases his claim to mesae profits on ' the fact that he became entitled to such land by an award decree in 1916 and did not get possession of the lands until 1917. The defendants contended that as the suit came under Section 16(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court had no jurisdiction. This contention found favour with, the learned Assistant Judge and also with the District Judge.2. Now in the case of land outside British India Section 16 has no application and have to fall back upon general principles in considering whether this is a suit in which a personal relief is claimed against a defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the Court.3. First, it may be as well to clear the ground by dispo...
Haranbhai Jivabhai Vs. the Collector of Kaira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1046
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover possession of the plaint property with 11s. 100 for damages for crops. Their claim to recover possession was disallowed by the learned District Judge, and they were only given a decree for Rs. 100. The plaint property belonged originally to the Talukdar of Dehwan. But it was not strictly speaking Talukdari land but Sanadia land situated in the village of Ras which happened to belong to the Talukdar.2. The question might arise whether the provisions of the Gujarat Talukdars Act VI of 1888 would apply to such land. But that question need not be considered because on other grounds we think the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession The landa were mortgaged by the Talukdar to oneBapu Hira. Bapu Hira died and his heirs mortgaged their mortgage rights in these and other landa to the present plaintiffs. When the Talukdari estate came into the possession of the Talukdari Settlement Officer as manager in 1905, that off...
Barthol Duming Rodricks Vs. Papa Dada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR836
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bandra, under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act I of 1871, and the complainant was awarded as compensation Rs. 100, together with the fine of Rs. 26-8-0 which he had paid. The learned Magistrate directed that the total Amount of Ra. 1-26-8-0 should be recovered in equal amounts of Rs. 42-2-8 from each of the petitioners.2. In appeal to the Sessions Judge the first point which was taken was that there was no appeal. The second point was that if there was an appeal the compensation awarded was really a fine, and the effect of the decision of the Magistrate was that each of the petitioners had been fined Rs. 42-2-8, and, therefore, no appeal lay under Section 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is admitted that a person convicted under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act can be said to be convicted of an offence. Therefore an appeal would lie unless the restrictive provisions of Section 4...
Vithaldas Bhagvandas Vs. Nagubai M. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom54; (1921)23BOMLR856
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the owner of a building on Sandhurst Road, seeks to evict the defendant, a lady Doctor, who is in occupation of the ground floor as residence and first floor as a hospital and also of one motor garage in an outhouse appertaining to the building.2. The plaintiff himself lives on the New Charney Road, and has two motor cars and two carriages without horses. He says he does not require any part of the property in the occupation of the defendant, except the motor garage, He wants this motor garage for the accommodation of one of his cars. His cars are at present accommodated, one, in a hired garags close to his residence, and the other, in a vacant shop on the ground floor of his sister's house. The carriages are, one, at his sister's bungalow on Malabar Hill, and the other, in one of the other garages in the same out-house.3. The car, which is in the hired garage close by, is conveniently situated, and he is content to leave that car there. The car he wan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »