Mumbai Court November 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.
Emperor Vs. Sejmal Punamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR170
Shah, J.1. This is an application by two accused persons, who were charged with having given falsa evidence in the course of their statements in a suit filed on the Original Side of this High Court. The charges against accused No. 1 were two, first, that he made a false statement 'Not true that I then deducted Rs. 750 for first ten months' interest' ; and, secondly, that he made the following false statement 'No letter was brought to me along with that cheque. I got no letter from defendant in which he alleged we had deducted Rs. 750.' The charge against accused No. 2 was that he made the following statement which he knew or believed to be false 'Not true that Rs. 750 deducted for interest.' There were separate charges against each of the accused.2. In the suit in which the two accused gave evidence, one of the questions raised at the instance of the defendant in that case was whether the sum of Rs. 750 was paid back by him as interest at the time of the loan. The trial Court having ma...
Emperor Vs. Mahadevappa Hanmantappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR153
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused Mahadevappa Hanmantappa.2. The accused was charged with:(1) a breach of condition No. 4 in the license in form A of the rules under the Indian Explosives Act IV of 1884,(2) with doing a rash and negligent act so as to endanger human life under Section 286, Indian Penal Code, and(3) with causing the death of one Bhimava by doing a rash and negligent act under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case was that, on September 7, 1925, the deceased Bhimava and another woman Sangava, employed by the accused, were pounding gun-powder with pestles in his house that in consequence of an explosion that occurred there Bhimava got burns, of which she died, and Sangava got slight injuries on her feet.4. The accused was said to be responsible for this act. This was at Kerur in the Badami Taluka. The Honorary First Class Magistrate of Bagalkot who tried the case has recorded his view of the evi...
Godavaribai Govindrao Saswadkar Vs. Deekappa Mallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom247; (1927)29BOMLR319; 101Ind.Cas.411
Shah, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts as stated above proceeded:] It has been urged on behalf of the applicant before us that the assets were held by the First Class Subordinate Judge, and before the receipt of the assets in question he had applied to the Court for execution of the decree for payment of the money passed against the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 73 of the Code. In short the applicant's contention is that the assets were received for the purposes of Section 73 of the Code by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar when the money was actually sent by the Hubli Court to the Dharwar Court in pursuance of the order made by the Hubli Court.2. On behalf of the opponents who have appeared before us, it has been urged that having regard to the provisions of Section 63 of the Code, the Court at Hubli really received the amounts for and on behalf of the Court at Dharwar and held them as agent or trustee for the Dharwar Court after the Court at D...
Madat Khan Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR784
Viscount Haldane, J.1. In this case their Lordships advised His Majesty that special leave to appeal should be granted, because of the apprehension that it might turn out that evidence which was given in one trial had been improperly imported into a quite separate trial. Now that the 'case has been fully and fairly put by Mr. Wallach on its merits, it turns out that the apprehension was not well founded.2. Two parties were charged for their attacks on each other in the same occurrence, and the charges were tried separately at two distinct trials. But, naturally, as the occurrences were common to both cases, the evidence given for the prosecution was similar to a substantial extent in each case. Bach party no doubt was a witness against the other, but, on the other hand, there was also independent evidence. In a case of that kind it is almost impossible to keep the cases wholly separate. Although they were tried separately, the High Court gave one judgment, but treated the cases as two ...
Pathumsa Ammal Vs. Rajagopala Mudaliyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR777
Phillimore, J.1. The greater number of the numerous and serious charges made in the plaint in this action have been disposed of in the Courts of first and second instance. Amongst those charges is the charge of negligence against the present plainttiff's guardian. The decree which is now complained of is admitted to have been well-founded and right, excepting in respect of two matters, the amount actually put into the decree and the short period of redemption. That it is usual to have a taking of accounts is, no doubt, the case; but if the result of taking them would be to give the same sum as that passed in the decree, there is no serious point in the Court not directing the account to be taken; and if the decree be rectified in respect of that amount, all that can be contended for is done. It is quite possible that the Judge who passed this decree did not quite, at the moment, see clearly how far the compromise went and how far he was bound, in dealing with the three defendants not p...
Fitzholmes Vs. the Bank of Upper India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR782
Phillimore, J.1. Their Lordships need not trouble counsel for the respondents. The cases under appeal were two, one against husband and wife, and one against wife only, in respect of mortgages to the respondent bank. Decrees fixing a figure to be paid and giving six months within which it should be paid were passed in both suits, on August 21, 1919, in one, and on December 17, 1919, in the other. The mortgagors appealed and somehow or other the proceedings got so delayed that the judgment of the High Court in both of the suits was not passed till March 7, 1923, when the High Court dismissed both appeals. On March 13, the bank applied for a final decree. Objection was taken by the mortgagors that six months had not expired since the decree of the High Court, and that objection prevailed. Thereupon the bank waited for six months and a little more and on October 10, applied for a final decree for sale, and an order was made on October 20. Thereupon the mortgagors appealed to the High Cour...
Abadi Begum Vs. Kaniz Zainab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR763
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Patna reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge, and giving plaintiff No. 1 Musammat Bibi Kaniz Zainab (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and the other plaintiffs her assigns a decree as sole heiress of one Musummat Asmatunnissa, who died in 1910, for possession of certain lands in respect of which that lady during her lifetime had executed three wakfnamas dated February 15, 1882, December 7, 1897, and July 17, 1907, dedicating them to religions and charitable uses, and providing for the appointment of mutawallis. Before coming to the points on which the lower Courts have differed, it may be mentioned that the plaintiff also attacked these transactions unsuccessfully on the ground that they were brought about by fraud without the knowledge of the settlor, who was incapable of understanding them, and also on the ground that the wakfnamas were merely nominal transactions, but there are concurrent fin...
Ma Mi Vs. Kallander Ammal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR772
John Wallis, J.1. The question whether Kallander Ammal, the plaintiff in this suit, was divorced in the year 1918 by her husband Shaik Moideen, now deceased, and so lost her rights of inheritance in his estate, is dealt with in the appeal which came before this Board in the principal suit brought by her against the present first and second defendants, who claim to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased as his widow and son. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks to recover from them certain lands in Burma of the estimated value of Rs. 6,000, conveyed to her by her late husband by a registered deed of gift dated July 20, 1914, which provided that out of the income remaining after the payment of the Government revenue she was to expend Rs. 450 every year for the charitable purposes mentioned in the schedule and to enjoy the balance; and that after her death her heirs were to continue the annual payment of Rs. 450 and to divide the balance according to the Mahomedan law. The defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›