Mumbai Court September 1921 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Gulabjan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1203
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The second accused was charged before the Honorary Magistrates together with three other persons with having committed an offence under Section 120 of the Bombay City Police Act. The case was transferred to the Presidency Magistrate's Court, and eventually the first three accused were found guilty and fined. The second accused has applied to the High Court to exercise its revisional powers on the ground that the accused was not questioned under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. We called for a report from the Magistrate who tried the case, and he says:-It seems from the record that she (accused No. 2) was not examined by me under Section 312, Criminal Procedure Code, as she ought to have been, after the evidence for the prosecution had been taken. This, probably, was due to an oversight, as it is my invariable practice to examine an accused person under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, in every case in which the plea is of not guilty. I have only to...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabjap Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.669
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The second accused was charged before the Honorary Magistrates together with three other persons with having committed an offense under Section 120 of the Bombay City Police Act. The case was transferred to the Presidency Magistrate's Court, and eventually the first three accused wore found guilty and fined. The second accused has applied to the High Court to exercise its revisional powers, on the ground that the accused was not questioned under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. We called for a report from the Magistrate who tried the case, and he says:It seems from the record that she (accused No. 2) was not examined by me under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, as she ought to have been, after the evidence for the prosecution had been taken, This, probably, was due to an oversight, as it is my invariable practice to examine an accused person under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, in every case in which the plea is of not guilty. I have only to add ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupal Tavanappa Kasturi Vs. Tavanappa Gangaram Kasturi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1236
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for separate maintenance and marriage expenses as a coparcener in an undivided Hindu family. The defendants are his father, uncle, cousin and stepbrother. The plaintiff alleged that he had quarrelled with the defendants and was driven out of the joint family house in May 1917. An issue was raised : ' Is a suit of a present nature tenable ?' That issue was answered in the negative and accordingly the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.2. We might point out that it would have been better if all the issues in the case had been raised, and then if there was a preliminary issue that could be dealt with first. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff, owing to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Apaji Narhar v. Ramchandra I.L.R (1891) Bom. 29 ' cannot file a suit 1921 for partition without his father's consent. The Judge says that the plaintiff has another remedy, namely, a suit for joint possession. But that is obviously a remedy which would tend to cr...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Bhimrao Sabnis Vs. Gangabai Ganeshbhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR69
Shah, J.1. Several questions of fact and law arise in these appeals.2. The following genealogical table indicates the relationship of the parties subject of course to their contentions as to certain facts:- Hanmant | ____________________________________________________ | | | Kristava Venkaji Balava (daughter) (son) (daughter) | | | _______________________ Bhimrao = Venkawa Keshav alias | | | | (son) HanmantRamchandra Krishtapa Venkava Gangawa | | | (plff.) | |Gurunath | Jivava = Ishwar |(adopted son) | (daughter) | Deft. 4 | | | Nilkant | | | (adoped son) | | | Deft. 3 | | | | _________________ | | | | | Hanmant | Lingo Gurunath Jivaji (adopted son) | | (given in (Deft. 2) | | adoption). ___________3. Gangawa, who claims to be the daughter of Kristava is the plaintiff in this case.4. Defendant No. 1, Dattatraya, not shown in the above table, claims to have been adopted by Venkava, the widow of Bhimrao. Defendant No. 2 claims to be the adopted son of Jivava, the daughter of Bhimrao.5. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivas Lingo Nadgir, Laxmanrao Madhavrao Jahagirdar and Lakshman Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR214
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. [After setting out the pleadings his Lordship said:-] Exhibit 471 is a memorandum dated the 12th November 1864 written by Col. Etheridge as Alienation Settlement Officer S.D. in reply to the Revenue Commissioner's endorsement of the 6th September. That document is not forthcoming but it would seem as if an inquiry had been made regarding certain lands which are set out in the memo. Items 16 and 17 are the 120 Mars now in suit. The memo para 4 says:-These items were all settled to be Kadim in 1862 by Major Etheridge upon the evidence then forthcoming which although defective was the best procurable. There was no evidence available from the Peshwai records. It is remarked, however, that the land rolls referred to in the para preceding show that the Heblikars at the date of the acquisition of the village did not receive the items 15, 16 and 17 occupying 200 Mars as bona fide Khalsat but as Kamavishi, though as it appears from an order dated 1792 from P.R. Patwardhan...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupal Tavanappa Kasturi Vs. Tavanappa Gangaram Kasturi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom435
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for separate maintenance and marriage expenses as a co-parcener in an undivided Hindu family. The defendants are his father, uncle, cousin and step-brother. The plaintiff alleged that he had quarrelled with the defendants and was driven out of the joint family house in May 1917. An issue was raised: 'Is a suit of the present nature tenable'? That issue was answered in the negative and accordingly the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.2. We might point out that it would have been better if all the issues in the case had been raised, and then, if there was a preliminary issue, it could be dealt with first. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff, owing to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Apaji Narhar v. Ramchandra Ravji (1891) 16 Bom. 29 cannot file a suit for partition without his father's consent. The Judge says that the plaintiff has another remedy, namely, a suit for joint possession. But that is obviously a remedy which would tend to creat...
Tag this Judgment!Senaji Kapurchand Vs. Pannaji Devichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1228
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These appeals are from two orders made by the First Class (Subordinate Judge of Dharwar in applications by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment against the three defendants. The appellants are the first defendant and the second defendant.2. The first point taken was that as an order has been made under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code staying the suit owing to the pendency of another suit between the same parties in the Court at Bellary, therefore no interlocutory order could be made in this unit. But under Section 10 it is provided that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties That does not prevent the Court from making interlocutory orders, such as orders for a receiver, or an injunction, or, as in this case an order for attachment before judgment.3. But on the merits it is perfectly clear that there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Pannaji Devichand Vs. Sennaji Kapurchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom431
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These appeals are from two orders made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar in applications by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment against the three defendants. The appellants are the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant.2. The first point taken was that as an order has been made under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code staying the suit owing to the pendency of another suit between the same parties in the Court at Bellary, therefore no interlocutory order could be made in this suit. But under Section 10 it is provided that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. That does not prevent the Court from making interlocutory orders, such as orders 'for a receiver, or an injunction, or, as in this case, an order for attachment before judgment.3. But on the merits it is perfectly clear that there were no ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Rahman Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1199
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. If the second accused is sentenced to be detained under rigorous imprisonment in the Juvenile Prison at Dharwar for two years as he is a lad of sixteen, and the first accused who is an adult, although he admittedly has three previous convictions is sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, it follows that the Magistrate gave the second accused a longer sentence because he considered that it would be for his benefit to remain within the walls of the Dharwar Institution for two years. It is nowhere laid down that a Magistrate has such powers to increase the sentence of imprisonment on this ground. However desirable it might be for the Magistrates to have such powers, the sentence is one under the Indian Penal Code, but as the rules with regard to the detention, of a juvenile in the Dharwar Jail provide that no one should be admitted into the jail unless he has been sentenced to a period of one year or upwards, the result is, that in the case of juveniles ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Rehman Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom429
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. If the second accused is sentenced to be detained under rigorous imprisonment in the Juvenile Prison at Dharwar for two years as he is a lad of 16, and the first accused who is an adult, although he admittedly has three previous convictions, is sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, it follows that the Magistrate gave the 2nd accused a longer sentence because he considered that it would be for his benefit to remain within the walls of the Dharwar Institution for two years. It is nowhere laid down that a Magistrate has such powers to increase the sentence of imprisonment on this ground. However desirable it might be for the Magistrate to have such powers, the sentence is one under the Indian Penal Code, but, as the rules with regard to the detention of a juvenile in the Dharwar Jail provide that no one should be admitted into the jail unless he has been sentenced to a period of one year or upwards, the result is, that in the case of juveniles Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »