Mumbai Court March 1926 Judgments
In Re : Frank Portlock
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1091
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Revenue Authority, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, to deter-mine what is the proper amount of stamp duty with which the instrument referred to in the reference and marked A is chargeable.2. It purports to be a conveyance from one Frank Portlock, as vendor, to Bai Chandanbai and others, as purchasers of a piece of land together with the buildings thereon situate at Alta-mont Road, forming portion of a large piece of land, which had been mortgaged by the vendor to the purchasers, under an indenture of June 14, 1921, to secure an advance of Rs. 5,25,000. The mortgage was duly stamped with Rs. 2,625.3. On February 6,1923, the vendor conveyed to the purchasers a portion of the premises comprised in that mortgage in con-sideration of Rs, 2,75,000 to be retained in part satisfaction of what was then due on the mortgage. The conveyance was duly stamped with the full ad valorem stamp duty of Rs. 4,125 payable under Arti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Frank Portlock
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom542
Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Revenue Authority, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, to determine what is the proper amount of stamp duty with which the instrument referred to in the reference and marke A is chargeable.2. It purports to be a conveyance from one Frank Portlock, as vendor, to Bai Chandanbai and others, as purchasers of a piece of land together with the buildings thereon situate at Altamont Road, forming portion of a large piece of land which had been mortgaged by the vendor to the purchasers, under an indenture of June 14, 1921, to secure an advance of Rs, 5,25,000. The mortgage was duly stamped with Rs. 2,625.3. On February 6, 1923, the vendor conveyed to the purchasers a portion of the premises comprised in that mortgage in consideration of Rs. 2,75,000 to be retained in part satisfaction of what was then due on the mortgage. The conveyance was duly stamped with the full ad valorem stamp duty of Rs. 4,125 payable under Article 28 of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Valavdas Vs. Bai Amba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR669
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This ia an application in revision against the order of a Magistrate increasing the maintenance allowance of the applicant Bai Anaba, under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, from Rs. 8-4-0 to Rs. 18 per mensem, the order to take effect retrospectively from the date of the application.2. It has been argued that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order. Under Section 488, the Magistrate has power to make the maintenance payable from the date of the application, We cannot see why he should not have the same power to direct, if he thinks fit, when an application is made to vary the order as regards the maintenance payable, that maintenance at the increased rate should be paid from the date of the application....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Raghoo Ganpat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR775; 97Ind.Cas.27
Madgavkar, J.1. The learned Counsel for the Crown asks leave of the Court to treat the third prosecution witness, Anusuyabai, as a hostile witness, and to be allowed to cross-examine her by putting in a certain statement of the witness before the Coroner on January 28, 1926, at his inquest on the death of the accused's child. For permission to treat her as a hostile witness he relies, firstly, on the fact that she is related by marriage to the accused and lives with him as one of the family; and, secondly, that, as to who killed the child, she has in this Court made a statement far more favourable to the accused than her statement before the Coroner.2. The learned Counsel for the defence objects on the ground that, on the whole, her evidence is not shown to be so favourable to the accused as to entitle the Crown to treat her as a hostile witness. The second ground is that the proceedings before the Coroner are not judicial proceedings in the same sense as the proceedings before the Com...
Tag this Judgment!Balbhaddar Singh Vs. Badri Sah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR921
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. The appellants and respondents are Iambardars and the principal inhabitants in the village ofMohiuddinpur. The suit arises out of circumstances of a remarkable character, which took place in connection with a crime as to which the complete truth will in all likelihood never be discovered.2. One Sheo Bux, a humble inhabitant of the village, was last seen alive on the evening of September 17, 1919, As he was under police supervision his absence after that data was noticed by the village policeman, but it was supposed that he had gone to some other village.3. On September 20, a little after noon, a party of four persons arrived at the police office, which is situated at a place called Paagawan, about two miles from the village. These were Badri Sah, a lambardar in the village, and one of the respondents, Hazari, a cultivator, his son, Raghunath, aged eighteen, and Bharat, a cultivator. The Sub-Inspector of police was, at the moment, absent, and a policeman was in ch...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikabai Ghatu Bhange Vs. Goja Mhaku Bhange
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1090
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff, who was the widow of one Mhaku, filed this suit against defendant No. 1, who was the widow of the elder brother of Mhaku, one Ghatu, and defendant No. 2, whom defendant No. 1 said she had adopted to her husband, Before the trial Court and the appellate Judge the main question appears to have been which of the brothers died first. The appellate Judge, differing from the trial Judge, found that the elder brother Ghatu died first, so that the plaintiff, as the widow of his surviving brother, would take the estate, and ordinarily the adoption by defendant No. 1 to Ghatu would be invalid.2. The adoption is said to have taken place in 1923, nearly five years after the death of the brothers, and it was not suggested in the pleadings that defendant No. 1 was authorised by her husband to adopt. If that had been suggested in the pleadings, undoubtedly an issue would have been raised, and it would have been decided whether Ghatu had authorised hie widow to ad...
Tag this Judgment!Motigavri Vs. Naranji Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR423
Kemp, J.1. The defendant was the agent of the Jivraj Baloo Mills. The plaintiff' and her deceased husband were creditors of that Mill to the extent of Rs. 20,000. On January 19, 1910, the defendant passed a havala for the debt due by the Jivraj Baloo Mills to the plaintiff and her deceased husband. The defendant passed a receipt on that day which is in these terms;-Received from Manecklal Amritlal Dave Esq. and his wife Bai Motibai the sum of rupees twenty thousand only being the amount in current account.2. There is a balance of Rs. 8,000 odd due on that account at the date of the suit.3. The plaintiff's husband died on or about April 13, 1910, and thereafter moneys were drawn against and payments made from the amount. The defence is that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant contends that the amount was a loan under Article 59 whereas the plaintiff contends that it was a deposit under Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that in any case the defendant was, as regard...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shidlingappa Gurulingappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR668
Norman Maeleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the applicant was convicted of offences under Sections 354 and 328, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to lines of Rs. 50 and Rs. 30, respectively, by the First Glass Magistrate, Bagevadi. He appealed to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that no appeal lay on the ground that Section 35, sub Section 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, providing that the aggregate of consecutive sentences passed under the section in case of conviction for several offences at of trial should for the purpose of appeal be deemed to be a single sentence, could refer only to sentences of imprisonment, So far we think he was right. But the right of appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class is given by Section 408 That right is restricted by the provision of Section 413 which directs that 'notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in cases in which a Court of Session passes a sentence of im...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas Gordhandas Vs. Damodardas Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom424; (1927)29BOMLR418; 103Ind.Cas.225
Kemp, J.1. One Jamnadas Lalbhai, who is the testator in this case, died leaving a will dated March 23, 1908, by the terms of which he appointed one Ratanlal and Jamnadas as his executors. Jamnadas is the plaintiff' in this suit. The deceased also left a minor daughter Buchibai and with regard to her the direction in his will was that, 'she alone is the only person truly entitled to my property', and later on, 'on Ben Buchi attaining proper age, my 'executors' shall make over the whole of my property to her.' Further on, 'my executors shall have full (entire) authority to make, consistently with my reputation, proper outlays in connection with my death and on the occasion of the marriage of Ben Buchi,' and at the end of his will is the following clause.; 'Should the death of Ben Buchi take place which may Narayan (God) forbid before (her) marriage or should she die without issue after her marriage then my executors shall use the whole of my property for (some) proper charitable purposes...
Tag this Judgment!Shidlingappa Gurulingappa Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom416
Macleod, C.J.1. In this case the applicant was convicted of offences under Sections 354 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fines of Rs. 50 and Rs. 30, respectively, by the First Class Magistrate, Bagevadi. He appealed to the-Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held; that no appeal lay on the ground that Section 35, Sub-section 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, providing that the aggregate of, consecutive sentences passed under the section in case of conviction for several offences at one trial, should for the purpose of appeal be deemed to be a single sentence, could refer only to sentences of imprisonment. So far we think he was right but the right of appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class is given by Section 408. That right is restricted by the provision of Section 413, which directs thatnotwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in cases in which a Court of Session passes a sentence of imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »