Mumbai Court November 1923 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.
Mallireddi Ayyareddi Vs. Adusumilli Gopalkrishnayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR204
Phillimore, J.1. Certain Indian landowners within the district of Masulipatam effected first, second and third mortgages on their property; the first and third being on the lands alone, the second on the crops also. They were afterwards sued to judgment by some creditors for ordinary debts, and their lands were sold in execution of the judgment but subject to the mortgages. The purchaser of the equity of redemption was one Pingala, who paid rupees 1,000, and thereout the judgment debt was satisfied.2. The second mortgagee then instituted his suit to enforce his mortgage, making the original mortgagors the third mortgagee and Piugala defendants; and having obtained judgment, he from time to time obtained orders for sale of the crops. In one case it would seem as if the crops were actually sold in execution; in others. Pingala, or the present respondents who bought Pingala's interests during the course of the proceedings, paid the second mortgagee sums of money and saved the crops from s...
Emperor Vs. Narayan Sayanna Kamathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom334; (1924)26BOMLR109
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, with appellate powers, of Ahmednagar. The first accused was convicted by the second class Magistrate of Nagar Taluka under ss. 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, and the second accused was found guilty of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. It seems to me that the evidence proves conclusively facts from which the prop inference to be drawn was that the second accused must have had reasonable belief that the property entrusted to him by the first accused was stolen property. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thought, however, that there was a defect in the trial which entirely vitiated the proceedings, so that the conviction and sentence passed on the second accused should be set aside. He says in his judgment:Unfortunately accused No. 2 was not asked by the learned Magistrate to explain this conduct and his knowledge about the things shown by him as was ne...
Kondama Naicker Vs. Kandasamy Goundar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR198
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated May 2, 1919, which varied a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, dated December 23, 1916. The plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of their maternal grandfather Mayilchami, who died in May, 1901, and was succeeded by his daughter, Aparanji Amman, the mother of the plaintiffs. The defendants are (among others) Aparanji Amman, Kumaravigaya, the son of the late Mandalathipathy, Sennamman Avergal, and Kandasamy Goundar.2. The purpose of the suit is to establish the plaintiffs' title as reversioners.3. To explain this title it will be convenient to set out the following pedigree:-- Vijaya Vaiyapuri _____________________|_____________________ | | Son Son | | Son Mayilchami, | died May, 1901. | | | _____________|___________ | | | Mandalathipathy Son died 1890 Aparanji | = Sennamman | Kumaravigaya The plaintiffs (sons).4. On Mayilchami's death Sennamnan commenced proceedings under th...
Emperor Vs. Rustam and Randhir Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR692
L.C. Dunedin, J.1. Mr. Dunne, I should like to say this, if the President does not object to ray saying it. I have now, since I have been here a good long time, sat in a great many of these cases, and, I may be wrong, but I do not remember any attempt so glaringly made, as in these two cases of yours, to bring up a question of mere evidence. Of course, I can quite understand that a man who is going to be hanged clings to any straw, and I can still more understand that you only do your duty in putting forward what you have done; but I do think that it ought to be very clearly understood in India that there is not a chance of our turning ourselves into a mere Court of Criminal Appeal, and we could not take up these two cases which we have seen today without turning ourselves into a Court of Criminal Appeal.2. Mr. Dunne. No, my Lord. The difficulty, if I may say so here, is one that one keenly feels oneself. You may be perfectly satisfied, in these cases, my Lord that when the papers firs...
India General Navigation and Railway Co Vs. Dekhari Tea Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR571
Shaw, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against decrees dated November 30, 1921, pronounced by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. These decrees affirmed seven decrees of Mr. Justice Rankin dated January 19, 1921.2. The action was directed by the respondents against the Assam-Bengal Railway Company as well as the present appellants, the India General Navigation and Railway Company. It was dismissed by consent against the former, called the Railway Company, and it proceeded against the latter, called the Shipping Company.3. The plaintiffs' claim is for damages for the loss of certain tea, part of a consignment of their goods which in November, 1915, was delivered by the respondents to the Railway Company for the purpose of transport from Assam to Chittagong for shipment to England. Consignments are in ordinary course thus taken and carried over all the Railway Company's own line without recourse to any other system of transport.4. A section of the line, however, so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›