Mumbai Court June 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. Dharala Mangal Jama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1040
Fawcett, J.1. These are three cases where certain persons have been convicted and sentenced, under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, by the Third Class Magistrate of Anand, He sentenced each of them to pay a daily fine until the encroachment complained of is removed.2. The District Magistrate has referred the cases to this Court on the ground that the sentences were illegal, as there was no previous conviction under that section, and a prospective fine is not justified without such a previous conviction, according to the view taken by this Court in Emperor v. Byramji Pudumji (No. 1) I.L.R. (1919) 43 Bom. 836 he recommends that the order for a daily fine should be converted into a sentence of substantive fine, viz., in one case (No. 20 of 1926) a fine of Rs. 50, in the other two cases the amount of a fine already recovered, i.e., Rs. 37-14 in case No. 21, and Rs. 40-2 in case No. 19.3. We have heard Mr. Koyajee on behalf of the accused in case No. 19, and the Government ...
Emperor Vs. Dharala Mungal Jama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom526
Fawcett, J.1. These are three cases where certain persona have been convicted and sentenced, under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act by the Third Class Magistrate of Anand. He sentenced each of them to pay a daily fine until the encroachment' complained of is removed.2. The District Magistrate has referred the cases to this Court on the ground that the sentences were illegal, as there was no previous conviction under that section, and a prospective fine is not justified without such a previous conviction, according to the view taken by this Court in Emperor v. Byramjs Pudumji (No. 1) [1919] 43 Bom. 236. He recommends that the order for a daily fine should be converted into a sentence of substantive fine viz., in one case (No. 20 of 1926) a fine of Rs. 50, in the other two cases the amount of a fine already recovered, i.e., Rs. 37-14 in Case No. 21, and Rs. 40-2 in Case No. 19.3. We have heard Mr. Koyajee on behalf of the accused in Case No. 19, and the Government Pleader...
Chandri Ayal Abdul Haji Sajan Vs. Abdul Karim Lalbhai Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1360
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought this suit to recover on a mortgage bond, dated August 22, 1922, the sum of Rs. 16,000 for principal and Rs. 2,500 for interest 'at 15 per cent., making together Rs. 18,500 with costs and future interest by selling the mortgage property. The main point before us is, whether this mortgage bond can be enforced in the present suit as has been decided in the affirmative by the trial Judge. The defendant-appellant, who is an illiterate Mahomedan woman, is the widow and administratrix of one Abdul Haji Sajan, who died in January 1918. Letters of Administration to her husband's estate were granted to her by this High Court on December 6, 1918. The mortgage property in question is not her sole property. Her interests in it are solely as administratrix and as beneficiary to the extent of two annas. The remaining fourteen annas in the property belong to her three children, two of whom are adults and one a minor. None of her children ar...
Emperor Vs. Patilbuva Raojibala Gavli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1029
Fawcett, J.1. The main point taken in this application is that the learned District Magistrate has not written, a legal judgment having regard to Sections 367 and 424, Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt, that judgment is very brief, and does not state the points for determination, and the reasons for a finding on each point specifically in the manner contemplated by those sections. But it is not a case where he simply confirms the conviction without giving any reason at all. He has in fact gone into the case, as is shown by his having acquitted the accused on the charge under Section 434, Indian Penal Code. He also says, 'The Magistrate's findings of fact are fully justified by the evidence.' And, although ordinarily that is not a sufficient manner of an appellate Court expressing its agreement with the judgment of the Court below, yet regard must be had to the circumstances. In the present case there is the fact that there is no dispute as to there having been some ploughing of a Bandh...
Dayal Singh Vs. Indar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1372
Viscount Dunedin, J. 1. On March 2, 1919, Dayal Singh, the defendant-appellant, executed an agreement with Indar Singh, now deceased, but represented by the plaintiff-respondent. This agreement had for its object the undertaking of a sale of certain property, and its terms, so far as material, are as follows :-I, Dayal Singh, son of Jivran Singh, caste Jat Garewa, resident and Lam-bardar of Chak No. 1/57, Upper Chenab, Tahsil Jarauwala, District Iyallpur, do here declare as follows:- * * * *(here follows a description of the subject) * * * * I have agreed to sell the above-mentioned property for Rs. 10,000 and the sum of interest, to be paid to the Government, to Indar Singh, son of Hira Singh, Havildar, caste Jat Dhami, ocupation cultivation, abadkar and resident of Chak No. 188, Rakh Branch, Tahsil Lyallpur, who has agreed to purohase this land merely for the sake of Lambardarship. Out of the sale money I have at present received Rs, 1,000 by way of earnest money, Rs. 9,000 is agre...
Patilbuva Raojibala Gavli and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom512; 97Ind.Cas.737
Fawcett, J.1. The main point taken in this application is that the learned District Magistrate has not written a legal judgment having regard to Sections 367 and 424, Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt, that judgment is very brief, and does not state the points for determination, and the reasons for a finding on each point specifically in the manner contemplated by those sections. But it is not a case where he simply confirms the Conviction without giving any reason at all. He has in fact gone into the case, as is shown by his having acquitted the accused on the charge under Section 434, Indian Penal Code. He also says : 'The Magistrate's findings of fact are fully justified by the evidence.' And, although ordinarily that is not a sufficient manner of an appellate Court expressing its agreement with the judgment of the Court below, yet regard must be had to the circumstances. In the present case there is the fact that there is no dispute as to there having been some ploughing of a Bandh...
Emperor Vs. Kallappa Dundappa Rudranavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1290
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the two accused have been committed to the Sessions Court of Belgaum for trial on charges of offences under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act VI of 1908. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to us on the ground that the sanction of Government for the prosecution of the two accused has not been obtained in accordance with Section 7 of that Act. We are asked to quash the commitment in toto, in order that the prosecution may obtain the necessary sanction and begin proceedings afresh.2. Section 7 of the Act in question says :-No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against) the Act except with the consent of the local Government or the Governor General in Council. 3. It is to be noted that these words are not as wide as some similar enactments in the Criminal Procedure Code. For instance, Section 132 says ' No prosecution shall be instituted ' with -out the necessary sanction. Sections 195, 196 and 197, Criminal Procedure Code...
Emperor Vs. Kallappa Dundappa Rudrannavar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom21
1. In this case the two accused have been committed to the Sessions Court of Belgaum for trial on charges of offences under Section 4 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act 6 of 1908. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to us on the ground that the sanction of Government for the prosecution of the two accused has not been obtained in accordance with Section 7 of that Act. We are asked to quash the commitment in toto, in order that the prosecution may obtain the necessary sanction and begin proceedings afresh. Section 7 of the Act in question says:No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against the Act except with the consent of the Local Government or the Governor-General in Council.2. It is to be noted that these words are not as wide as some similar enactments in the Criminal P.C. For instance, Section 132 says : ' No prosecution shall be instituted ' without the necessary sanction. Sections 195, 196 and 197, Criminal P.C. use the wide language ' No Cour...
Masit-ullah Vs. Lala Damodar Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1402
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Damodar Prasad on September 19, 1918, to set aside an alienation effected by his father Janki Prasad on September 17, 1906. Damodar Prasad the plaintiff' is a member of a Hindu family subject to the Mitakshara law, and the allegations on which he seeks to have the sale by his father set aside are, in the common form, alleged immorality of the father, jointness of the family, and the absence of necessity for the sale, which is sought to be set aside. The plaintiff made his father Janki Prasad a defendant in the suit. Originally, he was defendant No. 6, but, after the addition of the representatives of some of the vendees, who had died in the meantime, Janki Prasad was made defendant No, 11.2. In his plaint the plaintiff prayed to be put in proprietary possession of the property in suit and for mesne profits. In their answer to the plaintiff's claim the defendants denied that the property was ancestral and they all...
Dayanand Pandurang Nerkar Vs. Daji Narayan Nerkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1082
Fawcett, J. 1. This suit arises out of two decrees obtained against the plaintiffs' father Pandurang. He and his brothers, defendants Nos. 1 and 5, formed a joint Hindu family, at any rate, till about 1902. The decrees were against the plaintiffs' father alone, without his sons being made parties to the suit. The plaintiffs are those sons. In execution of those decrees. the properties mentioned in Schedules A and 6 to the plaint were put up for sale. The plaintiffs' father, admittedly, had a half share in these properties, his larger share being due to the fact of his having been given in adoption to his uncle. But, under Hindu law, his sons were joint with him in regard to that half share. Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 were the auction-purchasers, and defendant No. 10 now holds the rights of defendant No. 9.2. The plaintiffs sued to recover their separate share by partition in those sold properties on the ground that only the share of their father, Paudurang, actually passed to the auction-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »