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.
Emperor Vs. Lakshman Pandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR339
Fawcett, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, Bombay, under which he fined the petitioner Laxman Pandoo Rs. 10 for not complying with a Municipal notice to remove certain alleged insanitary sheds or huts under Section 380 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act. According to the record, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, and the Magistrate thereupon passed sentence upon him. It is, however, contended for the petitioner that the Magistrate was under a misapprehension, because the petitioner was only asked by the Court whether the sheds had been removed and the petitioner replied to that in the negative. On the other hand, Mr. Kemp for the Municipality alleges that the petitioner was asked whether he pleaded guilty or not. Ordinarily in a case where the record shows that an accused pleads guilty, that record is treated as conclusive. In any case even assuming that the petitioner's account is correct, it was open to him to tell the Mag...
Ramappa Shamnaji Shinde Vs. Yellappa Balaji Vagmode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom150; (1928)30BOMLR427
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff appellant, purchaser from the heirs of the mortgagor, sued to redeem from the defendants-respondents a mortgage of 1876. The respondents relied on an agreement to sell passed by two out of the three brothers and joint coparceners, heirs of the mortgagor, and claimed Rs. 500 for improvements, in case redemption was allowed. Both the lower Courts allowed redemption only in respect of the one-third share appertaining to the third brother who was not a party to the agreement to sell and rejected the respondents' claim for Rs. 500 for improvements for redemption of the whole, The plaintiff appeals. The defendants have filed cross-objections for improvements.2. It is argued for the appellant that the agreement by the two brothers being to sell not their respective shares but the entire property, they could not convey even their own shares and that possession having already been with the respondents as mortgagees, the doctrine of part performance has no applicati...
Emperor Vs. Daga Devji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR76; 108Ind.Cas.26
Fawcett, J.1. This is an application for revision by a petitioner, whose appeal to the Sessions Judge of Nasik has been rejected as time-barred.2. It appears that the petitioner is being prosecuted on a charge of having made a false statement under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint against him was made by the First Class Magistrate, Malegaon Taluka, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Malegaon on June 23, 1927. An appeal against this complaint was made beyond the period of thirty days from that date. But the appellant said that he only came to know of the complaint on August 6 and asked that the delay in presenting the appeal should be excused upon that ground. The Sessions Judge held that it was not true that he first knew of this complaint On August 6. The main reason he gives is that there had been a previous complaint against the petitioner in 1926, in which the petitioner appeared as an accused, but that that complaint was withdrawn for the technical r...
Moti Jagta Vs. Indurai Bhaurai Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom53; (1928)30BOMLR98
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this application is whether the words 'has been' in Section 26, Clause (b), of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act include the word 'is' or only refer to past proceedings. The dispute between the present parties was whether the petitioner was or was not a permanent tenant of the opponents. The petitioner brought a suit in the civil Court for a declaration that he was a permanent tenant with consequential reliefs. The opponents sued, subsequently and during the pendency of the civil suit, in the Mamlatdar's Court for ejectment. The Mamlatdar held that the petitioner was not a permanent tenant and granted ejectment. The petitioner applies in revision, and it is argued on behalf of the opponents that the words 'has been' cannot include a pending suit but only a decided suit.2. This contention is, in our opinion, untenable. In a decided suit, the question as to recovery or disturbance of possession or dispossession would be res judicata, and no express clause such as...
Basappa Budappa Halavalad Vs. Bhimangowda Shiddangowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom65; (1928)30BOMLR102; 108Ind.Cas.17
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit against his brother Basangowda on August 2, 1918, for a partition of joint family property. On August 10, 1918, Basangowda sold the property in suit, which was included in the claim of his brother, to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Basangowda died before the suit could be determined, and his widow and children were brought on the record in his place, Eventually a decree was passed under a compromise which inter alia awarded the plaintiff' half of the suit property. In 1923 he brought a suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, to whom Basangowda had sold the property, and two others to recover possession of this half of the suit property, namely Survey No. 408.2. The trial Court dismissed his suit holding that the decree was invalid for certain reasons, On appeal the District Judge of Dharwar held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applied to the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and that they were bound by the consent...
Ramanandi Kuer Vs. Kalawati Kuer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR227
Sinha, J.1. Harangi Singh of Bihar, a small town in the District of Patna, had two sons (1) Alak Prakash and (2) Gyan Prakash. Alak Prakash was given in adoption to Angat Singh, a wealthy inhabitant of the same town. On Angat's death, Alak Prakash, still a minor, inherited from him properties of considerable value, Harangi with his family, including Gyana Prakash, thereupon came to live with Alak Prakash in Angat's house and managed the properties as Alak's guardian till the latter attained majority. But even after that Harangi and Gyan continued to live with Alak Prakash in his house.2. On February 27, 1913, Alak Prakash died of phthisis at Patna leaving a young widow, Thakurani Kuer, and an infant daughter Ranmandi Kuer, the appellant. In May following, an anonymous petition, purporting to come from a well-wisher of the minor daughter of Alak Prakash, was sent to the Collector of Patna in which it was stated that Harangi was trying to secure the property for his second son.3. That pe...
Emperor Vs. Ukha Mahadu Barase
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1590
Fawcett, J.1. In this case on May 4, 1926, accused No. 1 made a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Nasik, that one Bai Saru had been murdered by her mother-in-law, and had been thrown into a well by two other persons. The Police investigated the petition, and, coming to the conclusion that it was false, obtained a summary in form B from the First Class Magistrate, Malegaon. The papers were then laid before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Malegaon, who sanctioned the prosecution of Ukha and his witnesses The First Class Magistrate, Nandgaon, on April 30, 1927, committed these persons for trial before the Sessions Court of Nasik under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. After the committal order had been passed, and on the same day, Ukha made a complaint to the same First Class Magistrate under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, accusing the mother-in-law and three other persons of murder. The Magistrate eventually committed these four persona for trial in the Ses...
B. Das and Co. Vs. the Broach Electric Supply and Development Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom55; (1928)30BOMLR90; 108Ind.Cas.18
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza. The learned Judge set aside an award in effect for the reason that a letter marked without prejudice in the body of the letter was tendered to the arbitrator who read it. There was then some discussion on its contents, but eventually he rejected the letter as evidence It is said that, although the letter was rejected as evidence, yet nevertheless the arbitrator saw it, and it follows that it must have prejudiced his mind, and consequently he committed misconduct for which his award must be set aside. In our opinion this finding of the learned Judge cannot be sustained. Even if it was a case of a Judge in Court, documents are often tendered to the Court on which the Court has to decide whether they are admissible or inadmissible. If then one was to hold that in every case in which a Judge rejects as evidence any document handed up to him, it follows that his mind must have been prejudiced by what he rea...
In Re: Fulchand Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom59; (1928)30BOMLR79; 108Ind.Cas.24
Fawcett, J.1. The petitioner, Fulchand Maganlal, has been ordered by the Additional City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, to pay his wife Bai Lili a sum of Rs. 20 a month as maintenance under b. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bai Lili, according to the findings of the Magistrate, married Fulchand some seven years bad?, but for the last five years she has been living with a relative, her maternal uncle. According to Bai Lili she was obliged to leave the house-in fact she was driven out of it-owing to her husband's maltreatment and misconduct. On the other hand, Fulchand has produced a judgment in a civil suit decided by the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge, where it has been held that Fulchand and Bai Lili had no access to each other at any time when a son who was born to Bai Lili could have been begotten; and he relies upon this evidence of adultery and contends that the wife is not entitled to any maintenance from him. The Magistrate, however, rejected this contention, holding that the ...
Jafferali Bhaloo Lakha Vs. the Standard Bank of South Africa, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR762
Cave, J.1. This is an appeal by three of the defendants in this suit from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, affirming the judgment of Mr. Justice Tomlinson of His Majesty's Court at Zanzibar in favour of the present respondents, who were plaintiffs in the suit.2. The facts may be quite shortly stated. One Bhaloo Lakha, who was a member of the Khoja community, carried on business as a clove merchant at Zanzibar under the style of Lakha Velani & Co. In the year 1908 ho acquired as his separate property the house in which the business was carried on. In the year 1913 he executed a deed of gift of all that ho possessed in favour of his six sons. Later on in the same year he made a will in which ho declared that he had no property or estate of any description, and appointed his eldest son, Mahoinedali, to be the guardian of his minor children. Ho died on October 6, 1916, leaving living all his six sons, of whom two, the first and second appellants, were then minors under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »