Mumbai Court November 1927 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.
Mahadaji Amrit Kulkarni Vs. the Collector of Satara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom181; (1928)30BOMLR434; 110Ind.Cas.697
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application by Mahadaji Amrita, the mortgagor-decree-holder, in a suit for redemption, No. 274 of 1923, against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vita on July 9, 1926, cancelling the decree in that suit on a certificate purporting to be under Section 10 of the Watan Act, III of 1874, of the Collector of Satara, and ordering the petitioner to deliver over possession of the land in suit to the Collector or to the judgment-debtor-mortgagee.2. The relationship between the parties is shown in the following genealogical tree.3. About the year 1862 and in any case prior to the passing of the Watan Act Bhagirtbibai, the widow of Waman, made a gift to Amrita, the illegitimate son of Balaji, of the watan lands in suit. In 1889, Amrita mortgaged the lands to Joti, opponent No. 2, with possession. In 1908, the matter was taken up by the Collector and the Government Resolution No. 5717, Kevenue Department, was passed on June 9, 1908, as follows :-In this case the alie...
Emperor Vs. Nabibux Karimbux Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom52; (1928)30BOMLR88
Mirza, J.1. In this case the accused are charged under two heads, viz,, (1) that they committed the offence of robbery and aided and abetted each other in that offence, and (2) that they committed the offence of robbery and at the time of committing such offence were armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a loaded revolver, and aided and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence.2. The learned Counsel for the prosecution has argued that Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code relates to a substantive offence and any person aiding or abetting such offence would be liable under Section 114 for the same offence if he were present at the time the offence took place.3. I am unable to agree with the argument that Section 398 creates any offence. In my opinion it only regulates the measure of punishment when certain facts are found to exist in the commission of the substantive offence which is robbery. The word 'offender' appearing in the section can refer only to the person who is p...
Emperor Vs. Phillip Spratt (No. 3)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom78; (1928)30BOMLR315; 108Ind.Cas.30
Fawcett, J.1. I deferred my ruling yesterday about the admissibility of the document (Exhibit K in the Magistrate's 1927 Court) until I had time to read it and consider the arguments addressed to me. I have carefully read it. This is not the proper stage at which to discuss it in detail; and I think it suffices to say that, in my opinion, some of its contents are such that the prosecution can reasonably rely on them as evidence of intention regarding the charge against the accused. The fact of this document being, according to evidence in Court, in the handwriting of the accused and found in his possession on September 9, 1927, if it does contain evidence of intention such as I have mentioned-is undoubtedly a fact which shows the existence of a state of mind, viz., the accused's intention, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act. That is going primarily upon the plain wording of the section, but I will consider the objections that have been fairly put before me by M...
Emperor Vs. Shantaram S. Mirajkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR320; 110Ind.Cas.235
Fawcett, J.1. Sir Chimanlal for accused No. 2 in this case asks that the trial of his client should be separated from the trial of accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is the printer of the pamphlet, which is the subject matter of the charge, and accused No. 1 is its publisher. He contends that there is evidence in the case affecting accused No. 1 only, which might confuse the jury and that his client would be prejudiced, if he is tried along with accused No. 1. The Advocate General opposes the application. There are, undoubtedly, considerations which go against an application of this kind. First of all, the two accused have been committed jointly by the Committing Magistrate, as opposed to the commitment of the author of the pamphlet who was committed separately; and certainly I should have thought that if the defence really had an anticipation of prejudice in a joint trial, that would have been a stage when an application could have been put forward, so that the Magistrate could have committ...
Sulleman Aba Mahomed Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom180; (1928)30BOMLR431
Madgavkak, J.1. [His Lordship, after narrating the facts of the case and stating his conclusions on them, continued :] The further point remains as regards the amount. The issues as framed in the lower Court were not expressly directed against the area to which the fine is assessed but only to the amount of assessment. As regards the rate of assessment, the decision of the Collector under Section 61, Bombay Land Revenue Code, is conclusive. As regards the area, it appears that out of forty to sixty acres, of which the Qaucharan consists, the amount of fine has been assessed on fourteen acres fifteen gunthas. As to the actual area of the pits the evidence varies from four acres to about nine acres. The real question really is as to the area of unauthorized occupation. On the one hand, it need not be confined to the bare area of the pits, nor, on the other, can it be extended to the entire area of the survey number. Occupation in the sense of the amount of area which has deteriorated for...
Madhavrao Ganpatrao Desai Vs. Balabhai Raghunath Agaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR282
Buckmaster, J.1. On May 1, 1889, Janardhan Wassoodev, a Hindu dwelling in Bombay, in consideration of the natural love and affection which he bore 'to his children and grandchildren,' made a voluntary settlement in their favour of property chiefly consisting of real estate. The children named as beneficiaries were four, Krishnabai, Pootlabai, Raghunath and Kashibai, all of whom were married and had children living at the date of the deed, while Raghunath had both children and grandchildren. The settlement took the form of a conveyance of property to trustees upon trust to pay the income, after deducting Rs. 25 per month for taxes and repairs, to the settlor for life and after his death; then upon certain trusts expressed in the following words:-Upon trust out of the said rents dividends and profits to pay one-fourth part of the net amount to Raghunath Janardhan son of the said Janardhan Wasoodev during his life and from and after the decease of the said Raghunath Janardhan in trust to ...
Emperor Vs. Phillip Spratt (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom77; (1928)30BOMLR314; 108Ind.Cas.32
Fawcett, J.1. I hold the document is relevant and admissible.2. It is relied on regarding accused's intention, and if this is what he wrote or typed, it falls under Sections 9 and 14 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. It is an original, so far as it is relied on as a piece of evidence, found in accused's possession, and alleged to implicate him; so the question of its being secondary evidence of an original letter does not bar its admission.4. As to the question whether a letter in accordance with this document was actually sent) to Mr. Horniman, this is a distinct question on which it is open to counsel to argue before the Court or to adduce evidence : but I do not agree with Mr. Talyarkhan that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that such a letter was sent, before this document earn be admitted.5. Document admitted, subject to evidence as to the signature being accused's or the typewriting being from the machine, Ex. I....
Sukdevdoss Ramprasad Vs. Govindoss Chathurbhujadoss and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR238
Darling, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated April 29, 1925, varying a decree of the same Court on the Original Side made by Mr. Justice Coutts-Trotter on October 4, 1923.2. In the original suit the plaintiffs (the present appellants) claimed the sum of Rs. 65,255, the price of goods sold and delivered by the appellants to the respondents.3. In answer to this claim, the respondents pleaded as follows :-The plaintiffs, defendants and certain other merchants formed a group, and it was agreed by and between the merchants of the group that the transactions had among them should take place on the footing that no deliveries should be intended or asked for, that pitta pattis or delivery orders should be issued to the respective purchasers, that after the delivery orders were sent round and the same ultimately reached the hands of the original vendors, the patta pattis should be exchanged and Havala Chita issued, that accounts should be take...
Emperor Vs. Phillip Spratt (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom74; (1928)30BOMLR313; 108Ind.Cas.509
Fawcett, J.1. The Advocate General applies that I should direct a special jury to be summoned for the trial of the two cases under Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The charge against the accused in these two cases is one under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The Advocate General points out that in four previous cases of a trial under this section in this Court the trial was by a special jury. The matter is one of discretion, but I certainly think that the fact that Section 124A is punishable with the highest punishment known to the law, except death, is a fact that has to be borne in mind, because the legislature has indicated by Clause (a) of the third portion of Section 276 that, where there is the extreme penalty of death, the trial should invariably be by a special jury. To this must be added the consideration that in previous cases of the same kind a special jury had been directed under this section, and the late Mr. Justice Davar in Emperor v. B.G. Tilak (1908...
Baijnath Prasad Singh Vs. Kedar Nath Goenka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR115
Viscount Sumner, J.1. Their Lordships are indebted to counsel for having at the outset explained the difficulties that lie in the way of the appellant in bringing this appeal to a conclusion satisfactory to himself. In their Lordships' opinion the first part of the case is completely covered by the recent decision of their Lordships' Board in the case of Protap Chandra Deo v. Jagadish Chandra Deo and, as to the second part, it relates to concurrent findings of the Courts in India on questions of fact, and their Lordships are therefore unable to entertain it.2. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »