Mumbai Court September 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.
Makkama Khadirsaheb Vs. Masabi Abasali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom299; (1925)27BOMLR208
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of certain property consisting of one survey number and a house. She based her claim upon a Mahrnameh which was passed by defendant No. 1 and his -son in her favour The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of defendant No. I. And defendant Mo. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1. The defence of defendant No. 2 way that these two properties were given to her along with the rest of the property by defendant No 1 by way of Mahr in 1908, The Mahrnameh in favour of the plaintiff was made in 1910. Defendant No. 2 claimed these properties an her property and misted the plaintiff's claim. The trial Court was satisfied that Defendant No. 1 had given the plaint property in Main* to defendant No. 2 before it wan given to the plaintiff; but it was of opinion that it way not valid and operative in law. Accordingly the plaintiff claim was decreed against the defendants.2. Defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Court,...
Bai Nurjan Begam Vs. Hansraj Jethumal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom239; (1925)27BOMLR202
Lullubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. These appeals raise an interesting question of law as to the interpretation of Order XXXIV, Rule 14, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are these :-The plaintiff's obtained a mortgage in respect of two houses Nos. 624 and 848 on July 1, 1914, from the defendants. There was a second mortgage in respect of the same houses in favour of the plaintiff's with which we are not directly concerned. On October 15, 1915, there was another mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of house No. 780 by the same parties. In 1917 about the same time the plaintiff filed two suits to recover rents due in respect of the mortgaged properties and for possession thereof. The rent was apparently due under rent-notes under which the mortgagors continued in possession as tenants of the mortgagees. In each suit they obtained a decree for possession as also for the rent claimed. Thus, on April 16, 1919, the plaintiffs had two decrees in their favour in respect of c...
Emperor Vs. Narayan Anant Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1245
Marten, J.1. In this case it is now common ground that the accused is charged and convicted solely under Sections 41(g) and. 18 (2) of the Indian Factories Act, 1911. Section 41(g) provides for the case where any order of an Inspector (inter alia) under Section 18 is not complied with. Then Section 18(2) runs:If in any factory there is any other part of the machinery or mill gearing which may in the opinion of the Inspector be dangerous if left unfenced, the Inspector may serve on the manager of the factory an order in writing, specifying the measures which he considers necessary for fencing such part in order to remove the danger, and requiring him to carry them out before a specified date.2. Why I lay stress on the particular sections under which the accused is now charged and convicted is, that the original application of February 27, 1924, by the Inspector of Factories, asked for a summons under Section 41(f) for breach of Section 18(3) of the Act. Then the summons that was actuall...
Shridhar Rambhau Mane Vs. Gujabai Mhasku Shewale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom301; (1925)27BOMLR198
Lullubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendant had no right to open new jalis or lattices in the wall in dispute, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the closing of the said jalis by the plaintiff from his aide. It was alleged that the jalis were put up by the defendant in 1920 when the plaintiff was absent, and that though an attempt was made to close up the jalis on behalf of the plaintiff, that attempt was resisted by the defendant, and that the defendant insisted upon keeping the jalis open without any obstruction from the plaintiff's side. The defendant in her written statement maintained that both the jalis were ancient and not newly opened as alleged by the plaintiff. She repudiated the statement that she had caused obstruction to the plaintiff in any way and had removed the bamboo said to have been put up by the plaintiff. She did not in terms repudiate the ...
Narayan Anant Desai Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom143; 85Ind.Cas.226
Marten, J.1. In this case it is now common ground that the accused is charged and convicted solely under Sections 41(g) and 18(2) of the Indian Factories Act, 1911, Section 41(g) provides for the case where any order of an Inspector (inter alia) under Section 18 is not complied with. Then Section 18(2) runs:If in any factory there is any other part of the machinery or mill--gearing which may, in the opinion of the Inspector be dangerous, if left unfenced, the Inspector may serve on the manager of the factory an order in writing, specifying the measures which he considers necessary for fencing such part in order to remove the danger, and requiring him to carry them out before a specified date.2. Why I lay stress on the particular sections under which the accused is new charged and convicted is, that the original application of February 27, 1924, by the Inspector of Factories, asked for a summons under Section 41(f) for breach of Section 18(3) of the Act. Then the summons that was actual...
In Re: Shriram Shambhudayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom104; (1924)26BOMLR984; 87Ind.Cas.100
Marten, J.1. The sole point before us is whether the learned Magistrate was right in thinking that the application of the accused for bail could not be entertained by him as he was 'directed to retain the accused in custody pending the extradition proceedings as per Ex. A.' The proceedings in question against the accused are under the Indian Extradition Ant, XV nf 1903 in respect of an alleged criminal breach of trust committed in the State of Indore, With the facts of that case we are not now concerned, and many of this allegations in the petition before us are for present purposes wholly irrelevant.2. It is said that the accused has been arrested without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant in pursuance of the provisions of Section 54(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently Section 23 of the Indian Extradition Act 1903 applies under which such a person 'may, under the orders of a Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such arrest was made, be d...
Emperor Vs. Chandri Bawoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1225
Marten, J.1. We have been engaged for over an hour and a quarter in considering the question whether an alleged prostitute has been rightly fined Rs. 5. But the apparent minor nature of the offence is quite disproportionate to the points of general jurisdiction and policy involved.2. Shortly stated, the accused alleges that she was wrongfully arrested under Section 10(1) of Bombay Act XI of 1923 (the Bombay Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923) and that accordingly the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that consequently her conviction, notwithstanding her protest, was illegal.3. Now under Section 10(1):--Any police officer on complaint, and any police-officer authorized in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police by special order without such complaint, may arrest without a warrant any person committing, in his view, any offence punishable under Section 3, if the name and address of such person be unknown to such police-officer and cannot be ascertained by him then a...
Chandri Bawoo Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom131; 85Ind.Cas.57
Marten, J.1. We have been engaged for over an hour and a quarter in considering the question whether an alleged prostitute has been rightly fined Rs. 5. But the apparent minor nature of the offence is quite disproportionate to the points of general jurisdiction and policy involved.2. Shortly stated, the accused alleges that she was wrongfully arrested under Section 10(1) of the Bombay Act XI of 1923 (the Bombay Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923) and that accordingly the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that consequently her conviction, notwithstanding her protest, was illegal.3. Now under Section 10(1): 'Any Police Officer on complaint, and any Police Officer authorized in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police by special order without such complaint, may arrest without a warrant v any person committing, in his view, any offence punishable under Section 3, if the name and address of such person be unknown to such Police Officer and cannot be ascertained by him ...
Darubhai Mithabhai Vs. Bechar Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom270; (1925)27BOMLR196
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The decree under execution as passed by the trial Court on September 27, 1911, is in these terms :-That the plaintiff should pay to the defendant No. 2 Rs. 299 and costs of this suit together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent, by three equal annual instalments from this day. He should pay the first instalment on March 15, 1912, and be should pay every subsequent instalment on the same date of every year, And until the whole debt is paid off as shown above, the charge of defendant No. 2 will permanently remain on the plaint property. If the plaintiff fails to pay any of the instalments whatever, the defendant No 2 is at liberty to make an application to the Court under 8, 15 B, Clause 2, of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. This decree was subsequently confirmed by the District Court, and ultimately by the High Court on October 16, 1914. The appealing party was the mortgagee, the original defendant No. 2, that is, the present ap...
Emperor Vs. Motiram Hari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1223
Fawcett, J.1. [His lordship in dealing with the objection as to the admissibility of Ex. 360 observed:] As to (1), objection was taken to Exh. 360, which is a certified copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, dated December 16, 1897, under which accused No. 1 Motiram was convicted of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. It is clear, however, that this evidence was admissible under the rulings of this Court in Emperor v. Tukaram Malhari : (1912)14BOMLR373 and of the Calcutta High Court in Bhona v. Emperor I.L.R. (1911) Cal. 408; and we see no reason to take a different view. But, as regards the weight to be attached to this piece of evidence, I think that the conviction was so long ago that it is useless except for showing that accused No. 1 is a person of criminal tendencies to theft who might be a member of the alleged gang. It certainly does not go to show that he had any habit of committing thefts in the period u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »