Mumbai Court December 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.
The Sheriff of Bombay Vs. Hakmaji Motaji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom521; (1927)29BOMLR1071
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This case illustrates the fact that it is usually much easier to make mistakes than to remedy them.2. On November 29, 1923, the bailiffs of the then Sheriff of Bombay Sir Temulji Nariman, had in their custody a judgmentdebtor named Bhavani Govind. That judgment-debtor escaped from their custody. The plaintiffs thereupon gave notice to the Sheriff of Bombay, claiming damages for the escape of the prisoner. Subsequently, on December 13, 1923, they gave formal notice of the suit, and followed this up on March 14, 1924, by bringing the present suit against 'the Sheriff of Bombay' as defendant.3. At the date of the suit Mr. Ishwardas Lakhmidas was the Sheriff of Bombay. The formal appearance for the defendant was entered by the Government Solicitor 'for the Sheriff of Bombay.' The written statement was put in on July 22, 1924, and signed, 'Ishwardas Lakhmidas, Sheriff of Bombay.'4. It was amended on March 3, 1926, pursuant to an order of February 23, 1926. That ...
Emperor Vs. Malhari Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR186
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused Malhari Laxman was registered at Deolali as a member of a criminal tribe, on March 25, 1920. By Government Resolution No. 5012, dated May 20, 1921, the Mang Garudis registered at Deolali were ordered to be placed in the Sholapur Settlement. It appears that the accused was in the Sholapur Settlement from July to October 12, 1921, On October 13, 1921, the accused was released on probation and allowed to go to Bombay and his roll-call was cancelled. There was no settlement at Bombay at that time, but later on the Dharavi Settlement came into existence in 1925, and the accused got himself registered on December 3, 1925. The accused did not disclose to the Bombay Police that he was already settled at Sholapur and was in Bombay on probation. On December 22, 1925, the Criminal Tribes Settlement Officer ordered accused's probation to be cancelled for misconduct, and the accused was ordered to be returned to the Sholapur Settlement. This order was communica...
Emperor Vs. Aba Appa Dharwade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR191
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused Aba Appa Dharwade was convicted under Section 16 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act VIII of 1914 for committing a breach of Rule 7 of the Rules applicable to the Ratnagiri District published in Government Resolution No. 6630, dated October 16, 1917, and also under Rule 33 (b) published in Government Notification No. 2592, dated March 16, 1920.2. The facts found against the accused are, that, on August 30, 1925, the accused drove a motor car belonging to Messrs. Shirgaokar Brothers who had a contract for the transport of the mails between Ratnagiri and Kolhapur, as the regular driver of Messrs. Shirgaokar Brothers was ill on that day ; that, according to the owner's permit, not more than eight passengers could be carried in the Ratnagiri District, and as a matter of fact the accused carried seventeen passengers including himself and the cleaner. The defence of the accused was that the same car was licensed to carry seventeen persons within Kolhapur li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›