Mumbai Court November 1924 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.
Emperor Vs. Nathu Kasturchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom170; (1925)27BOMLR105
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged before the First Class Magistrate in the Nasik Sub-Division with having committed an offence under Sections 352, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial commenced on April 16, 1924, when one witness for the prosecution was examined. On April 25, two more witnesses for the prosecution were examined and then the accused was questioned generally. To the question whether he wished to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, he said 'Yes'. He was also asked if he had any witnesses, and he gave the names of certain persons he wished to call as witnesses for the defence. On the same day a charge was framed under the three sections abovementioned. On May 2, the prosecution witnesses who had previously been examined were cross-examined. The accused was not questioned further and he entered on his defence. One witness for the defence was examined and cross-examined. On May 20, 1924, another witness for the defence was examined, ...
Emperor Vs. Bhimrao Narsimha Hublikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR120
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged before the Additional Sessions Judge at Sholapur with having accepted from one Shri Kisan Sarda cloth to the value of Rs. 95-7-6 as a motive for showing favour to the said Sarda in Suit No. 570 of 1922 on his file, the accused at that time holding the appointment of joint Subordinate Judge at Sholapur and thus having committed an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, The Judge disagreeing with the assessors found him guilty and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of 1,000,2. The accused has appealed.3. Sarda, a wealthy merchant of Sholapur, owned a house which he has leased to the Municipality to be used as a school building. In April 1922 he was told that if he would open windows on the ground-floor and add a second storey he would he paid an increased rent. With the consent of the Municipality he commenced the alterations and additions. His neighbours on either side objected. One of them, Tandulw...
Mahomedally Ebrahimji Leheri Vs. Haji Abdulla Kazim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom167; (1925)27BOMLR102; 94Ind.Cas.631
Marten, J.1. It is clearly proved here that the plaintiff is the owner of a building known as Leheri Mansion in Sandhurst Road and that the defendant is a monthly tenant of a portion of that property. Under the decree of March 24, 1924, in Suit No. 4017 of 1923, the standard rent of that property has been fixed at Rs. 530 per mensem, I find as a fact that the monthly tenancy runs from the first day of each month to the last day of each month according to the English dates.2. On July 31, 1924, the attorneys for the plaintiff gave the defendant notice to quit in the following terms so far as material:-We have to call upon you to quit and deliver quiet and peaceful possession of the portion ...occupied by you for the purposes of your hotel as our client's monthly tenant at the end of next month (i. e. August 31, 1924). In default our client will file an ejectment suit against you to recover possession of the said premises at your risk as to costs, which please note3. The point is whether ...
Ramchandra Hanmant Deshpande Vs. Kashinath Laxman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom288; (1925)27BOMLR241
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this action in 1920 asking for a declaration that the sale-deed, Exhibit 27, was of the nature of a mortgage, and prayed that the amount due under it to the mortgagee might In ascertained. The document was passed on May 27, 1902, and even if the previous decision of them Court that agriculturists in this District were not entitled to take advantage of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act had been wet aside since the case was heard in the trial Court as Sections 2 and 20 of the Act were only extended to this District from January 21, 1903, the plaintiff could not take advantage of that extension. After the suit was dismissed in the trial Court, the District Judge in appeal made an order that the suit should be remanded to the lower Court under Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code, for trial on the other issues which had been framed.2. Now in 1902 the plaintiff and his father were point. The father had sold the property...
Ramchandra Hanmant Deshpande and ors. Vs. Kashinath Laxman Deshpande a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.804
1. The plaintiff filed this action in 1920 asking for a declaration' that the sale-deed, Ex. 27, was of the nature of a mortgage, and prayed that the amount due under it to the mortgagees might be ascertained. The document was passed on May 27, 1902, and even if the previous decision of this Court that agriculturist's in this District were not entitled to take advantage of Section 10A of the Dekkan Agriculturists' Relief Act had been set aside since the case was heard in the Trial Court as Sections 2 and 20 of the Act were only extended to this District from January 21, 1903, the plaintiff could not take advantage of that extension. After the suit was dismissed in the Trial Court, the District Judge in appeal made an order that 'the suit should be remanded to the lower Court under Order XLI, Rule 23, C. P.C., for trial on the other issues which had been framed.2. Now in 1902 the plaintiff and his father were joint. The father had sold the property as manager of the joint family. It is ...
AugustIn Manwel Pereira Vs. Duming Pascol Demello
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom440
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the complainant was called upon to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code. An order was thereafter made that, as the complainant was unable to show cause, he should pay Rs. 20 to each of the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, Rs. 40 to No. 6 and Rs. 100 to No. 5. An appeal was filed under Sub-section (3) of Section 250. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have been of opinion, that the appeal was only competent as regards the Rs. 100 awarded as compensation to accused No. 5, and that he could not deal with the amounts awarded to the other accused because they were under Rs. 50. Accordingly he referred the case to this Court, asking this Court to pass a similar order with regard to the compensation awarded to the other accused as was passed by him in the case of accused No. 5. We think that the Sessions Judge has placed a wrong construction on Section 250, Sub-section (3) as in our opin...
AugustIn Manwal Pereira Vs. Duming Pascol Demello
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1243; 85Ind.Cas.160
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In this case the complainant was called upon to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused, under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code An order was thereafter made that as the complainant was unable to show cause, he should pay Rs. 20 to each of the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Rs. 40 to No. 6 and Rs. 100 to No. 5. An appeal was filed under Sub-section (3) of Section 250. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have been of opinion that the appeal was only competent as regards the Rs. 100 awarded as compensation to accused No. 5, and that he could not deal with the amounts awarded to the other accused because they were under Rs. 50. Accordingly he referred the case to this Court, asking this Court to pass a similar order with regard to the compensation awarded to the other accused as was passed by him in the case of accused No. 5. We think that the Sessions Judge has placed a wrong construction on Section 250, Sub-section (3) as in our opinion that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›