Mumbai Court January 1926 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.
Mhalappa Venkatesh Shetti Vs. Janardan Govind Mahale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR527
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land described in the plaint free from any rights or charges thereon, alleging that defendant No. 1 held the land in suit under a Mulgeni lease, dated June 17, 1882; that under it the lessee was liable to pay the stipulated rent at a fixed time of the year; that the lease also stipulated that the lessee should enjoy the land without transferring it to anybody; that if he broke any of these conditions the lessee was under its terms liable to forfeithis lease-hold rights; that defendant No. I did not give the stipulated rent at the stipulated time; that defendant No. 1 mortgaged the land to defendant No. 2 on November 11, 1922; that he thus broke both the conditions and that, therefore, the plaintiff had got a right to recover possession of the land.2. The first defendant contended that the stipulation against alienation was illegal. But that is obviously a point which cannot be relied upon by the first defendant...
Maneklal Vadilal Vs. Chandulal Balabhai Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR525; 94Ind.Cas.646
Norman Macleod Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued on a writing to recover Rs. 1,000 with interest at nine per cent. from September 24,1920. The defendant claimed that, after he executed that writing, there were share dealings between himself and the plaintiff, with the result that the plaintiff became indebted to the defendant to the extent of Rs. 971-14-0. The Judge allowed the defendant to set off his claim, holding that the plaintiff's claim for interest during the period of two years was improper, and found that nothing was due to the plaintiff, and dismissed the suit.2. In appeal the District Judge dealt with the contention of the plaintiff that the set-off was wrongly allowed, as no court-fees were paid, by pointing out that the provisions of the Court Fees Act were not to be made the means of harassing an opponent. He refers to some decision of the Privy Council without giving the exact reference. It is quite true that the objection as to court-fees should have been taken in the low...
Janardan Govind Mahale Vs. Mhalappa Venkatesh Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom304
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land described in the plaint free from any rights or charges thereon, alleging that defendant No. 1 held the land in suit under a mulgeni lease, dated June 17, 1882; that under it the lessee was liable to pay the stipulated rent at a fixed time of the year; that the lease also stipulated that the lessee should enjoy the land without transferring it to anybody; that if he broke any of these conditions the lessee was under its terms liable to forfeit his leasehold rights; that Defendant No. 1 did not give the stipulated rent at the stipulated time; that Defendant No. 1 mortgaged the land to Defendant No. 2 on November 11, 1922; that he thus broke both the conditions and that, therefore, the plaintiff had got a right to recover possession of the land.2. The first defendant contended that the stipulation against alienation was illegal. But that is obviously a point which cannot be relied upon by the first defendant.3. We must ...
Haridas Narayandas Bhatia Vs. Devkuvarbai Mulji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR637
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of this case are as follows. One Narayandas started business in Bombay as a piece-goods merchant; many years ago, He commenced his venture without the aid of any joint ancestral nucleus and amassed considerable wealth, While he was carrying on the business, the present plaintiff Haridas was born to him, and when Haridas reached the age of eighteen or thereabouts, he was associated with his father in the business. The trial Judge remarked :As the plaintiff grew be manhood and the father advaaoed be old age, more and more burden of the business was shouldered by the plaintiff and less by the father. The father and son lived and messed also jointly. All the property, and it is said by the aon to be worth a lao, was acquired gradually from the profits of the business.2. Then, shortly before his death, Narayandas gave away a piece of land, the subject-matter of the present suit, to his daughter, the defendant. The plaintiff was aware of the gift, and kn...
Surajlal Munshilal Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR641; 95Ind.Cas.950
Coyajee, J.1. Until the year 1914, Sakarpur was a Bhagdari village in Ankleahvar Taluka of the Broach District. In 1869-70, the survey settlement was applied to it and it was recognised as a separate Akari Bhag village, i.e., the bhags were assessed on separate survey numbers in each bhag; and in addition to those lands, there was considerable vinghoti or non bhagdari lands in the village area. Exhibit 124, which is the vahivatnama issued to the village, contains this clause:The Bhagdars must make the payments according to their respective instalments as at present (settled) or according as the Government may from time to time settle. In case a Bhagdar fails to pay, all the Bhagdars and Jathadars must pay the amount (Government dues) jointly and severally, and if the amount recoverd falls short of the revenue fixed, Government is at liberty to exercise the power according to law to recover the balance together With interest and to discontinue the narva (system of tenure) and to introdu...
Emperor Vs. Pandu Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR297
Marten, J.1. We agree with the letter of reference of the District Magistrate of East Khandesh to the effect that the accused in these two cases could not properly be admonished under Section 562 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The attention of Magistrates should be drawn to the fact that the sub-section only applies to a certain limited class of eases such as theft and so on under the Indian Penal Code. Consequently it does not apply to an offence under a totally different Act such as the present, the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914. The words of the sub-section are plain, and effect must be given to them 'Whether the sub-section should not be extended so as to cover legs serious offences than those at present mentioned is a matter for the legislature and not for ourselves. If a Magistrate wishes to pass a nominal sentence there are other means of doing it than the one the trial Magistrate has adopted in the present case.2. The District Magistrate states that this offence of overcr...
Emperor Vs. Maridas Lazar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR298
Marten, J.1. The point here is whether the accused, who is a male, can be convicted, under Section 236 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, of loitering for the purpose of prostitution. The learned Sessions Judge considers that this section must be confined to female prostitution, and that, consequently, the accused cannot be convicted. He says : 'Prostitution is the act or practice of a woman who prostitutes her body.' With deference we do not think the expression prostitution can necessarily be confined to a woman, For instance, the expression 'a male prostitute' is sometimes used. Be that as it may, what the learned Judge really asks us to do, is to insert the words 'his or her own' into the section so as to make it run : 'whoever in a cantonment loiters for the purpose of his or her own prostitution,' &C.; These words are not in the Act, and we do not see why we should in effect insert them. On the contrary it would seem desirable that even if the prostitution is that of a female, the...
Emperor Vs. Shankar Narayan Gosavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR300
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, of Satara asking us to enhance the sentences under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code on the three accused, Shankar, Datta-traya and Dnyanu.2. On the evidence the facts are clear, The three accused conspired to kidnap a minor girl aged thirteen from the custody of her husband, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 with two servants waited outside the village and accused No. 3, who had most acquaintance with the girl, went to her with a, false message and took her to the other accused outside the village. She was then ordered to take off her ornaments and to accompany the accused to the village of Mayani; and when she refused, they threatened to beat her and ultimately compelled her to go to that village. She remained there for twelve days before her husband obtained news and brought her back. In the interval accused Nos. 1 and 2 purchased some musical instruments and brought them. There is no evidence that she was violated. It is clear t...
Emperor Vs. Shankar Narayan Gosavi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom256
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Satara asking us to enhance the sentences under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code on the three accused, Shankar, Dattatraya and Dnyanu.2. On the evidence the facts are clear. The three accused conspired to kidnap a minor girl aged thirteen from the custody of her husband. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 with two servants waited outside the village and Accused No. 3, who had most acquaintance with the girl, went to her with a false message and took her to the other accused outside the village. She was then ordered to take off her ornaments and to accompany the accused to the village of Mayani; and when she refused, they threatened to beat her and ultimately compelled her to go to that village. She remained there for twelve days before her husband obtained news and brought her back. In the interval Accused Nos. 1 and 2 purchased some musical instruments and brought them. There is no evidence that she was violated. It is clear that...
Surajlal Munshilal Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom467
Coyajee, J.1. Until the year 1914, Sakarpur was a, Bhagdari village in Ankleshvar Taluka of the Broach District. In 1869-70, the survey settlement was applied to it and it was recognized as a separate Akari Bhag village, i.e., the bhags were assessed on separate survey numbers in each bhag; and, in addition to those lands, there was considerable vinghoti or non-bhagdari lands in the village area. Exhibit 124, which is the vahivatnama issued to the village, contains this claue:The Bhagdars must make the payments according to their respective instalments as at present (settled) or according as the Government may from time to time settle. In case a Bhagdar fails to pay, all the Bhagdars and Jathadars must pay the amount (Government dues) jointly and severally, and if the amount recovered falls short of the revenue fixed, Government is at liberty to exercise the power according to law to recover the balance together with interest and to discontinue the narva (system of tenure) and to intro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »