Mumbai Court June 1922 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.
Mahadu Kashiba Vs. Krishna Tatya Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR917
Crump, J.1. By our interlocutory judgment of June 22, 1920, we sent down two issues for determination and we are now in possession of the findings of the lower Court upon those two issues and of the materials upon which those findings are based. The first issue was 'were the Panchas and the Sar-Panch appointed in this case as required by Section 18 of the Hereditary Offices Act,' and upon the facts stated in the judgment of the lower appellate Court upon remand, I think that this question must be answered in the negative.2. Section 18 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act lays down the procedure to be followed in determining the rights and duties of certain classes of Vatandars, and it is necessary before the determination can be said to have been made under that section that the provisions of that section should have been complied with at least in substance. Now what the section requires is that the Collector, if he takes action under that section, shall cause the matter in dispute to ...
In Re: Kariyappa Ningappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR807
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. In this case a conditional order was made under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Third Division, Dharwar, on the 5th December 1921, whereby the present petitioner, Kariappa bin Ningappa Savadi, was required either to remove the wall by the 21st December 1921 or to appear before the said Magistrate to show cause against the order. After that the parties appeared before him and it appears from the proceedings that the papers were forwarded to the Second Class Magistrate, Navalgund, for inquiry and report, because the parties expressed their inability to attend the Court of the said Magistrate. Afterwards the Second Class Magistrate recorded evidence and made a report. On that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made his final order. We think that the procedure followed in this case is irregular and the order should be set aside on that ground.2. It was open to the Magistrate to direct the party by the conditional order to app...
Lakshmibai Jagannath Joshi Vs. Yeshwant Vithal Bagkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR909; 75Ind.Cas.283
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this application. First, it is urged that the defendant's heirs were brought on the record more than three months after the death of the original defendant; and that they should not have been so brought on the record without formally setting aside the abatement of the suit which resulted in consequence of the lapse of three months from the date of the defendant's death. We do not think that there is any substance in this point. The application was made within six months, which was the period allowed by the Indian Limitation Act of 1908, and the change in the period of limitation which was effected by Act XXVI of 1920 may not have been and probably was not known to the parties. The delay was rightly excused and the omission to set aside the abatement was a formal defect not affecting the merits of the order. Secondly, it is urged that after the parties were brought on the record, the lower Court wrongly allowed the p...
Lakshmibai Wife of Jagannath Vaman Joshi and ors. Vs. Yeshvant Vithal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom92
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., A.C.J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this application. First, it is urged that the defendant's heirs were brought on the record more than three months after the death of the original defendant; and that they should not have been so brought on the record without formally setting aside the abatement of the suit which resulted in consequence of the lapse of three months from the date of the-defendant's death. We do not think that there is any substance in this point. The application was made within six months, which was the period allowed by the Indian Limitation Act of 1908, and the change in the period of limitation which was effected by Act XXVI of 1920 may not have been and probably was not known to the parties. The delay was rightly-excused and the omission to set aside the abatement' was a formal defect not affecting the merits of the order. Secondly, it is urged that after the parties were brought on the record, the lower Court wrongly allowed the ...
In Re: Mahadev Ramkrishna Karkare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR805
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. In this case the Magistrate has made the order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving to the complainant an opportunity of putting forward his objections to the order. The reason given by the Magistrate for adopting that course is that in his view the complainant had been absenting himself on the appointed days of hearing, and, as he conjectured, probably fearing that he would be called upon to pay compensation. It is difficult to understand how any inference could be drawn against the complainant from his absence. He was not bound to be present at those dates of hearing, or at any rate, on the day on which the order was made. There is nothing to show that he was bound to be present, and in fact he was absent. The Magistrate has read the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 250 as though it contained the words if the complainant be present.' But those words are not there and it is difficult to read words in the proviso which ar...
Vithal Dhondji Devli Vs. Suryaji Ramchandra Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR902; 75Ind.Cas.617
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as representing Gaukars of the village of Khanoli entitled to the management of the temple against the defendants who were the Devlis and the Bhavnis connected with the temple as servants and defendants Nos. 29 and 30 who were alienees from defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's case was that the lands in suit were really Devasthan lands given to the defendants Devlis and Bhavnis for the services which they rendered to the temple, and that the alienation of these lands was invalid. He sued for a declaration that the property was Devasthan property and prayed for possession of the lands.2. The defendants in substance pleaded that these lands were Jat-inam property of the Devlis and that they were entitled to alienate the lands. It was apparently common ground in the lower Court that if it was found that these lands were Devasthan property, the alienation would be clearly invalid. The trial Court found i...
The Tata Industrial Bank Ltd. Vs. Abdul HuseIn Hakimji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1296
Marten, J.1. These five suits are all summary suits, in four of which the Tata Industrial Bank are the plaintiffs and in the last of which the Eastern Bank are the plaintiffs. They are against various defendants, but the same point arises in each of them, and therefore they have been taken together. The same counsel appear for the plaintiffs and the defendants in each case. In each case there is a notice of motion to set aside the order made by Mr. Justice Crump in Chambers directing the summary suits to be beard on May 23, 1922, and also to set, aside the ex parte decree passed by myself on the hearing of the suit in the absence of any application for leave to defend, and, thirdly, asking in the alternative that the decree may be set aside under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, there being special circumstances and that the defendants may now be given leave to defend and appear.2. Substantially the point in each case is this: whether within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, ...
In Re: Satyabodha Ramchandra Adabaddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR928
Marten, J.1. This is the hearing of a rule granted by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Shah on the April 11, 1922, at the instance of the Government Pleader calling upon Mr. Satyabodha Ramchandra Adabaddi, Editor and Printer of the Vijaya newspaper, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of the publication of the article headed 'End of the fifth scene of the First Act of the Painter-Marston-Shivlingappa shooting case' in the issue of the said paper of February 12, 1922.2. The newspaper in question is one circulating in the Dharwar District and is a Kanarese newspaper, and the respondent appears to have published in this newspaper an article commenting on the judgments of Mr. Justice Pratt and Mr. Justice Kanga, in what is known as the 'Dharwar not case,' which were delivered on February 11, 1922, dismissing certain appeals from the convictions and sentences of the Sessions Judge of Dharwar. The article, it will be observed, appeared on the next d...
Emperor Vs. Ahilya Manaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR803
Marten, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case proceeded-] My learned brother raised one point on the evidence which is none the less valuable because it is technical. I refer to the certificate, which was admitted in evidence, of the Professor of Anatomy at the Grant Medical College as to the bones. That is Ext. 36 and it is referred to by the learned Sessions Judge at page 49 line 35 of his judgment. The technical point is whether that certificate as such is admissible in evidence. What took place is this: that certain articles which were found in the place I mentioned such as sack, dhoti, rags, gunny bag, etc., were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser was not called but merely his certificate was put in. That is correct. The person who was called was the Sub-Assistant Surgeon and his evidence was: 'The Sub-Inspector of Police, Akola, had sent to me some articles. They are all before the Court. All the articles except bones were sent to the Chemic...
Ahila Manaji and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom183; 84Ind.Cas.643
Marten, J.1. In this case we had the Advantage of hearing from Counsel for the accused all that can fairly be said on their behalf, but in the result I am satisfied that this is a clear case of murder. We have had the further assistance of an extremely clear judgment from Mr. Broomfield the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar, which relieves me from the necessity of setting out in any detail the facts of the case.2. Shortly stated the deceased was a moneylender belonging to the village of Brahmanwadha, and it is alleged by the prosecution that he was murdered by people to whom he had lent money, namely, the accused who were inhabitants of the neighbouring village of Kalamb. The two villages are about a couple of miles distant and the case for the prosecution is that the deceased left his own village one morning to settle up some accounts at Kalamb, that he left Kalamb the same evening, and was murdered on his way home by the accused and one other man called Yesu, an approver in the case; and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »