Mumbai Court April 1923 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Parshottam Jagjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom47; (1923)25BOMLR767
Shah, J.1. In this case the petitioner seeks to have the order of conviction against him revised, The accused has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Surat of refusing to furnish information required by the Municipality under bye-law 4 framed under Section 48(f) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. The Municipality called upon the petitioner to furnish information which they required with regard to children of school going age and they purported to do so under the said bye-law. The petitioner refused to furnish the information. Consequently he was prosecuted for a breach of this bye-law; and he was sentenced under bye law 5 to pay a fine of Rs. 2.2. Then he made an application to the Sessions Court with a view to have this matter referred to this Court. But the learned Sessions Judge declined to refer tie case to this Court.3. The present application is made to this Court to have the conviction and sentence set aside. The application is supported on two ground?.4....
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom766
Schwabe, C.J.1. This case raises the same-point as Criminal Revision Case No. 691(1), the only difference being that it was tried summarily under Chapter XXII. In our judgment, there is no difference between summary trials of summons cases and the ordinary trials of summons cases. This petition must be dismissed. The sentence is light, but in the circumstances as he has al ready been released and only has few more days to serve we reduce the sentence to 11 days....
Tag this Judgment!Konthalathammal Vs. Thangasamy and Three ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom873
Oldfield, J.1. The first and important of the two orders before us was passed by the District Judge of South Arcot on a petition for the removal of first respondent from her position as testamentary guardian of the person and property of a minor Thirugnanavalli Ammal, for the appointment of the petitioner or any other fit person in her stead and for connected reliefs. Against that order there is an appeal by the petitioner and also a revision petition.2. I deal first with the respondent's preliminary objection to the appeal, that this order, consisting in a refusal to remove a guardian is not appealable under Section 47, Guardians and Wards Act (VII of 1890) and is final under Section 48. The order, as it stands, is certainly of that character, its conclusion being that the Court is not prepared to remove the guardian on any of the grounds stated in the petition and that the petition is dismissed; and the objection is supported by authority which I am prepared to follow, Mohima Chunder...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaya Lal Vs. National Bank of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1248
Dunedin, J.1. The present action is to recover a sum of Rs. 83,005 with interest, being a sum paid, as alleged, under coercion and as such recoverable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. In order to make the matter intelligible it is necessary to give the history of the various transactions which have given rise to the claim.2. A limited company called The Delhi Mills Cotton Company was established before 1891 and carried on business. of January, 1891, it issued debentures to the extant of two lacs of rupees in favour of a Mr. Anderson and others. The debentures were secured by a mortgage of immovable property of the company. Later in the same year the company arranged for a cash credit with the respondents-he National Bank of India-to the extent of two lacs. By a supplementary agreement of March 6, 1900, this was increased to three lacs. In security of the sums to be advanced under the cash credit, the company gave the bank a lien on all manufactured goods and on all raw mate...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusamy Odayar and there ors. Vs. Ramasamy Thathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom758
Schwabe, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been referred to the Full Bench on the question whether in summons cases the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be applied, that is, is the Court bound, for the purpose of enabling the accused, to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, to question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence. The inconvenience of this course is manifest in view of the provisions of Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require the taking down of any such question in full in the language in which the accused is examined, or, where that is not practicable, in the language of the Court or in English, and that the record shall be shown or read to him and, if necessary, interpreted. The great majority of summons cases are of a petty nature and a strict application of the section must necessarily involve a co...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnan Chetty and anr. Vs. G.S. Alagiri Aiyer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom852
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. This suit having been dismissed on the ground that on the facts stated by the plaintiff there was no cause of action, we must assume for the purpose of this appeal that those facts are correct. On this assumption the plaintiff was the owner of a ring of the value of Rs. 1,000 and lent it to the first defendant. The plaintiff was liable to the first defendant on a promissory note for Rs. 2,500 and the first defendant was liable to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,072-8-0 being the first defendant's contribution in respect of a joint bond which the plaintiff had discharged. The first defendant assigned the promissory note to one Mikka Pillai who brought an action on it, Original Suit No. 21 of 1915 in the Salem District Court against the plaintiff. On the 7th of March 1913 the plaintiff presented an insolvency petition against the first defendant. In that petition he alleged that the first defendant was indebted to him for Rs. 3,072-8-0 made up of the Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Paulo David De Souza Vs. K.R. Daphtary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom252; (1923)25BOMLR610
Mulla, J.1. The question arises whether the plaintiff's have made out a marketable title to the property. The first defendant contends that they have not, and on his behalf the following points have been raised, namely,(1) that the order does not in fact empower the second defendant to sell the moiety vested in him;(2) that even if it does, it was obtained by underhand dealing on the part of the second defendant;(3) that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order; and(4) that the first defendant contracted with the plaintiffs on the footing that they were absolute owners, and the plaintiffs could not force on him a title different to that which he agreed to take.2. I shall deal with these points in order.3. The first point is that the order does not authorise the second defendant to sell the moiety vested in him. I think it does. The agreement was for the sale of the whole property not merely of the interests of the first and third plaintiffs and the fifth and sixth plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Paulo David Desouza and ors. Vs. K.R. Daphtary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1923
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.230
Mulla, J.1. After stating the facts of the case his Lordship went on: ] The question arises whether the plaintiffs have made out a marketable title to the property. The first defendant contends that they have not, and on his behalf the following points have been raised, namely,--(1) that the order does not in fact empower the second defendant to sell the moiety vested in him;(2) that even if it does, it was obtained by underhand dealing on the part of the second defendant;(3) that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order; and(4) that the first defendant contracted with the plaintiffs on the footing that they were absolute owners, and the plaintiffs could not force on him a title different to that which he agreed to take.2. I shall deal with these points in order.3. The first point is that the order does not authorise the second defendant to sell the moiety vested in him. I think it does. The agreement was for the sale of the whole property, not merely of the interests of...
Tag this Judgment!Kahandas Naran Vs. Jivan Parag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom427; (1923)25BOMLR510; 73Ind.Cas.1023
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the adoption of the first defendant was invalid and accordingly to recover possession of the property specified in the plaint. The relationship of the parties is shown in the pedigree at p. 2. The original holder of the suit property was one Parag Ranchhod who died leaving a widow Parvati and a sister Lakhi. Parvati adopted the first defendant Jivan, son of Lakhi. Plaintiffs, sons of Naran, who was the first cousin of Ranchhod, claimed that to the property in suit which was Bhagdari property, paternal kinsmen succeeded in preference to female heirs, so that if the adoption of the first defendant was declared to be invalid, they would be entitled to succeed. The learned Judge held that as the property was Bhagdari, the plaintiffs would succeed in preference to Lakhi, the sixth defendant. But he held also that the adoption of the first defendant was valid and accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The learned J...
Tag this Judgment!Babagouda Malgouda Patil Vs. Tanibai Bhratar Ramgouda Hargouda Patil b ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom112; 76Ind.Cas.1041
1. The plaintiff got a decree on the 9th March 1914 which was continued by the High Court on the 5th September 1917. The decree was in favour of the plaintiff and the third defendant for possession against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, together with profits for two previous years and future, profits at a certain rate. The plaintiff by means of a Dzrkhast obtained possession. Thereafter he assigned the decree to the present applicant who sought to execute the decree for mesne profits with costs. The defendants objected to the transfer of the decree and also contended that the previous Dzrkhasts were not 'in accordance with law' because they ware applications for partial execution. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge, however, directed execution to proceed.2. We do not think that there is any substance in the suggestion that the previous Durhhasts for possessions were not 'in accordance with law' so that they could not be considered as steps-in-aid of execution. In Dalichand Bhudar v. B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »