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.
Basaya Nurndaya Dhandvati and ors. Vs. Murgaya Somaya JangIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom576
Shah, Ag., C.J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal. The first point is that the meeting of the Municipality convened by the Chief Officer for November 12, 1923, for the election of the President, Vice-President, and other office-bearers was illegal, as already a meeting convened by that Officer, on October 31, 1923, for a similar purpose was adjourned sine die. The second point urged is that, after the election of the President, the Chairman, who was elected to preside at the meeting of November 12 in the beginning, ought to have vacated the chair, and the proceedings of the meeting should have been continued under the presidentship of the newly elected President. It is urged that, as this was not done, and as the proceedings were continued under the Chairmanship of the Chairman elected at the beginning of the meeting, who also happened to be elected as Vice-President at that meeting, the proceedings of that meeting are vitiated.2. As regards the first point, there ...
Emperor Vs. Vishvanath Nana Karpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1033
Fawcett, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Poona, regarding the conviction of three persons of an offence under Section 61, Clause (f), of the Bombay District Police Act, The offence in question is that of having kept logs of timber on a public street and causing obstruction thereby, though warned to remove the logs. This would fall under the words of the clause, ' causes obstruction in any street by leaving any box, bale, package or other thing whatsoever in or upon a street for an unreasonable length of time. ' And, in so far as these logs of timber were admittedly put out for sale, that would also fall within the words, ' by exposing anything for sale or setting out anything for sale in any way whatsoever that causes obstruction. ' The defence raised is that the Municipality had authorised timber dealers to use a strip of the street for the purpose of exposing timber for sale, and we are assured by the learned Counsel for the accused that this has been done for fort...
Emperor Vs. Vishvanath Nana Karpe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom535
Fawcett, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Poona, regarding the conviction of three persons of an offence under Section 61, Clause (f), of the Bombay District Police Act. The offence in question is that of having kept log of timber on a public street and causing obstruction thereby, though warned to remove the logs. This would fall under the words of the clause,causes obstruction in any street by leaving any box, bale, package or other thing whatsoever in or upon a street for an unreasonable length of time.2. And, in so far as these logs of timber were admittedly put out for sale, that would also fall within the words,by exposing anything for sale or setting out anything for sale in any way whatsoever that causes obstruction.3. The defence raised is that the Municipality had authorized timber dealers to use a strip of the street for the purpose of exposing timber for sale, and we are assured by the learned Counsel for the accused that this has been done for forty years....
Emperor Vs. Trimbak Balvant Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1022
Fawcett, J. 1. In this case the applicant filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and issued notice, but subsequently dismissed the appeal owing to the absence of the appellant and his pleader. This, however, is a procedure which is not authorised by any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 423, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal has to peruse the record and to form an opinion as to whether there is or is not sufficient ground for interference, This has been already ruled by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Deoshanker (1892) Cr. C. 593 Cr. R. No. 11 of 1892. There are also similar rulings of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Pohpi I.L.R. (1891) All. 171 and of the Punjab Chief Court in Koura v. Queen-Empress (1895) P.R. No. 21 of 1895 (Cr.). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal, and direct th...
Emperor Vs. Chunilal Hargovan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1023
Fawcett, J.1. The applicant was prosecuted for permitting his cow to stray in a street at Borsad at 8 P.M. on a certain date, and thereby having committed an offence under Section 61-A of the Bombay District Police Act He pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined Rs. 75. His appeal was dismissed because he pleaded guilty. He now comes in revision and contends that the conviction is illegal, because Section 61-A has not been extended to the Municipal streets in Borsad where the cow was found straying. In view of the provisions of Section 412, Criminal Procedure Code, I think this plea can be raised, although the applicant pleaded guilty. The contention rests upon the Government Notification No. 781, dated January 29, 1919. This extends the provisions of Section 61-A to ' the lands for the time being included for the purposes of the Land Revenue Administration within the limits of ' certain towns or villages, of which Borsad is one.2. The learned pleader for the applicant points out tha...
Emperor Vs. Kasturi Shidrama Bogar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1031
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle without a license, an offence punishable under Section 16 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. Instead, however, of passing any sentence on the accused, the Second Glass Magistrate released him on a probation of good conduct under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that Section 562, Sub-section (1), applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment, whereas the offence under Section 16 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act was punishable with fine only, and, therefore, the Second Glass Magistrate had no authority to pass the order he did.2. It is contended by Mr. Nadkarni for the accused that, inasmuch as the offence punishable with fine can become an offence punishable with imprisonment in default of payment of fine, it is covered by this Sub-section (1) of Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, and also that there is no adequate ground why su...
Trimbak Balwant Vaidya Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom548
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the applicant filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and issued notice, but subsequently dismissed the appeal owing to the absence of the appellant and his pleader. This however, is a procedure which is not authorised by any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 423, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of appeal has to peruse the record and to form an opinion as to whether there is Or is not sufficient ground for interference. This has been already ruled by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Deoshanker [1892] Rat.Un.Cr.C. 593. There are also similar rulings of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Pohpi [1891] 13 All. 171 and of the Punjab Chief Court in Koura v. Queen-Empress [1895] 21 P.R. 1895 Cr. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal, and direct that the appeal be re-admitted on ...
Chunilal Hargovan Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom67; 97Ind.Cas.668
Fawcett, J.1. The applicant was prosecuted for permitting his cow to stray in a street at Borsad at 8 p.m. on a certain date, and thereby having committed an offence under Section 61-A of the Bombay District Police Act. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined Rs. 75. His appeal was dismissed because he pleaded guilty. He now comes in revision and contends that the conviction is illegal, because Section 61-A has not been extended to the Municipal streets in Borsad where the cow was found straying. In view of the provisions of Section 412, Criminal Procedure Code. I think this plea can be raised although the applicant pleaded guilty The contention rests upon the Government Notification No. 781, dated January 29, 1919. This extends the provisions of Section 61-A tothe lands for the time being included for the purposes of the Land Revenue Administration within the limits ofcertain towns or villages, of which Borsad is one.2. The learned pleader for the applicant points out that the M...
Trimbak Balvant Vaidya Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.751
1. In this case the applicant filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and issued notice, but subsequently dismissed the appeal owing to the absence of the appellant and his Pleader. This, however, is a procedure which is not authorised by any provision of the Cr. P.C. Under Section 423, Cr. P.C. the Court of Appeal has to peruse the record and to form an opinion as to whether there is or is not sufficient ground for interference. This has been already ruled by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Deoshanker Rat. Un.Cr. C. 593 : Cr. R. No. 11 of 1892. There are also similar rulings of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Pohpi 13 A. 171 : A.W.N. (1891) 48 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S ) 107 and of the Punjab Chief Court in Koura v. Empress 21 P.R. 1895 Cr. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal, and direct that the appeal be re-admitted on t...
Ramchandra Bajaji Bhandgire Vs. Shripati Subhaji Bhandgire
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1258
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs-appellants sued to recover possession of the plaint plot, which is an open site, and also to recover Rs. 50 by way of damages for trees cut down and removed by the defendant, the allegation being that the plaint property was of the plaintiffs' exclusive ownership and enjoyment, and that the defendant had not the least right over the trees that he had cut.2. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs' claim for ownership and granted them the decree as sought.3. On appeal, the Assistant Judge held that the plaintiffs had not satisfied certain mortgage deeds executed in favour of the grandfather of the defendant about the plaint property, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the site as owners. He also held that these particular trees had been planted by the defendant as mortgagee, and that he had a right to plant and remove the trees. Accordingly, he reversed the lower Court's decree and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »