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.
Vithaldas Bhagvandas Vs. Nagubal M. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.330
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 out-house appertaining to the building.2. The plaintiff himself lives on the New Charney Road, and has two motor oars 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 tars. His tars are at present accommodated, one in a hired garage 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...
Emperor Vs. Ramrao Abaji Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom62; (1921)23BOMLR831
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of the Third Class Magistrate dismissing the complaint of the Mai wan Municipality brought against the accused in the following circumstances. The accused is the owner of a building within the Municipal limits. He wanted to erect a stone-wall to his compound at a distance of thirty-feet from the house. He commenced to erect the wall without giving notice under Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1907, whereupon he was served with notice to stop the construction of his wall until he had obtained permission. The accused, however, paid no attention to the notice, but finished the wall in contravention of the orders of the Municipality in consequence of which the Municipality accorded its sanction for the prosecution of the accused for failing to give notice and directed the Municipal Inspector to lodge a complaint against him under Section 96, Clause (5), of the Act.2. The question is, therefor...
In Re: Indian Companies Act. and Sir Hormusji A. Wadia, Kt.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom372; (1921)23BOMLR1104
Pratt, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidators of the Coronation Mills Co. Ltd. for rectification of the register by the deletion of the names of Sir Shapurji B. Broacha, Mr. Chhoi and Mr. Kuka in respect of 79, 60 and 61 shares respectively.2. The company was incorporated in 1902 with a share capital of Rs. 7,00,000 made up of 1400 shares of Rs. 500 each. Two hundred of these shares were not issued, and, on the 17th of November 1919, the directors held a meeting at which five directors were present. These were the two liquidators and the three gentlemen above-named. At this meeting the following resolution was passed:-That the 200 shares which have not been taken up, be sold at the rate of Rs. 1200 per share to Sir Shapurji B. Broaoha and Messrs. Chhoi and Kuka in the proportions of their present holdings.3. In accordance with this resolution, shares were allotted as stated in the petition.4. By the Articles of Association, the allotment is in the absolute discretion of the directo...
Emperor Vs. Anverkhan Mahamadkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR823
Pratt, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted of the offences under Sections 201 and 218, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Kaira and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the charges, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The accused was a Head Constable in charge of a Police station at Kathana. On the 24th July last, the Mukhi of Ralaj sent a report to the Police Btation that one Nana Daya had complained of the commission of a theft of his ornaments and clothes. The report was received at noon at Kathana and the accused went to Ralaj to investigate the case.3. It is admitted that in the course of his investigation he searched the house of Ganesh Ramji, father-in-law of the complainant's daughter, who was suspected of being the thief, found in his house a piece of cloth and a bodice which the complainant said belonged to him. He also found in that search a sum of Rs. 149. It is also admitted that Panchanamas were made of the search a...
Emperor Vs. Maruti Joti Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR820
1. The two accused have been convicted of the offence under Section 436, Indian Penal, Code, in that they destroyed by fire on the night of 14th May 1920 the cattle-shed of the complainant in the village of Chikli.2. It is admitted that the cattle-shed was burnt down that night. The next day the complainant's brother Dadu made a statement to the effect that the fire was accidental and a Paneh-nama was recorded to that effect. The Panch and the Patil state that Dadu said that the two accused had burnt down the shed and that he was afraid to complain against them as they were the leaders of a gang who were the terror of the village.3. The story given by the complainant and his brother Dadu is that these two accused endeavoured to extort from them a sale-deed of a field and on his refusal threatened that very night to burn down his cattle-shed. Shortly after that, the complainant was informed by the two Mahar boys Joti and Shankar that the cattle-shed had been burnt down in their presence...
Nilkanth Devrao Nadkarny Vs. Ramakrishna Vithal Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR876
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for an injunction against defendants Nos. 1-4 restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs in the management of the affairs of the temple of Shri Shanta Durga of Ankola, and Tor a declaration that defendants Nos. 1-4 were not the properly appointed trustees of the said temple. The first issue was whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit or whether it should lie in the District Court. The learned Judge said : ' It is argued by Mr. Joshi that the suit is barred by Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and also by Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863.' It is not now suggested that the latter section applies. The learned Judge proceeds : ' The relief claimed in this suit is that the appointment of defendants Nos. 1-4 as plaintiff's co-trustees is invalid. Such a suit does not fall under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. That section applies where breach of trust is alleged or where the direction of t...
Appa Dhond Savant Vs. Babaji Krishnaji Ghogle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR873
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These are two companion appeals in original Suits Nos. 302 and 325 of 1913 filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Malvan. The claims were rejected in the trial Court, but were decreed by the lower appellate Court. The property in suit belonged in 1857 to two brothers, Dhond and Vithal Savant. They conveyed the property by a deed dated the 9th February 1857, together with two other Thikans, to their sister's husband Raghoji Ghogle for Rs. 225. The defendants who resist the claims of the plaintiffs, as the descendants of Raghoji, are the widow and children of Dhond Savant. They alleged that, with regard to the Thikan in suit, Babaji which was called Thikan Modapa, the transaction with the Ghogles was benami, and they rely on certain transactions with that Thikan after 1857 to show that it was intended, when all the three Thikans were conveyed, that Raghoji should hold the Modapa Thikan benami for the vendors. The contention, therefore, is that the Cour...
Vali Asmal Vs. A.U. Malji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR898
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under the Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner was be defendant No. 1 in Suit No. 240 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Join second Class Subordinate Judge at Broach. the had summoned Rao Bahadur Malji, a pleader, to give evidence with regard to a certain purshis which had been put in another suit, and had paid the usual subsistence allowance of Re. 1. In the end there was no necessity for the Rao Bahadur to give evidence as the parties to the suit admitted the mistake in the purshis. On the day on which the Rao Bahadur had been summoned to appear, he was actually appearing as a pleader in another suit in the same Court building, and had not, therefore, incurred any extra travelling expenses in going to the Court to give evidence. However, when the case was finished the Rao Bahadur put in a bill for Rs. 30, and this was allowed by the Subordinate Judge as the Rao Bahadur was called to- depose on facts wh...
Emperor Vs. Gurlingappa Shidramappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR817
Curiam, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Bijapur of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are not disputed. There were two factions in the village of Shidnath: on the one hand the faction of Ganigers and on the other the faction of Gowdas. About the time of this offence incidents occurred which exacerbated the ill-feeling between the two factions. On the 19th October there was a dispute about a field which Jummangowda had bought and he was obstructed by the opposite faction from ploughing it and on the 21st October 1919 there was a dispute about a right of way in which Jummangauda was assaulted by the members of the opposite faction including the two accused.3. Jummangauda, in order to take revenge, got together an armed gang which went about the village looking for the accused shouting 'din, din' and announcing t...
Yadao Vs. Namdeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR609
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, a minor through his guardian, from a decree, dated April 27, 1918, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, which reversed a preliminary decree of the partition of December 15, 1916, of the additional District Judge of Akola, in Berar, and dismissed the suit. By the preliminary decree it was declared that the parties to the suit were entitled to separate possession of the property mentioned in the schedule to that decree, and that : 'The plaintiff, as a legally adopted son of the deceased Pundlik Patil, is entitled to a half share in the property immoveable and moveable, including the shop assets, and that he is entitled to the possession of that half share after a partition of it all by metes and bounds as against the defendant. If any other property besides that in the hands of the receiver available for partition is brought to the notice of the Court, till the passing of a final decree of partition it sha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›