Mumbai Court December 1927 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Pandu Avachit Bhil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom141; (1928)30BOMLR378; 108Ind.Cas.512
Fawcett, J.1. In this ease the accused was convicted of two offences : (i) of having in his possession one and a half drams, of illicit liquor-an offence under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Bombay Abkari Act of 1878, and (2) of having in his possession apparatus for manufacturing illicit liquor-an offence under Clause (h) of the same section, He was awarded two distinct sentences for each offence. The District Magistrate has referred the case to us, being of opinion that the two sentences are illegal, as the second offence was included in the former, and under the Explanation to Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code they were not distinct. It should be noted that this particular Explanation has been repealed by Act XVIII of 1923, and, therefore, does not affect the case. But the District Magistrate has also given a reference to some rulings which are mentioned at pp. 36 and 37 of the Bombay Excise Manual, Vol. I. These presumably are the cases mentioned in para...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: E.D. Sassoon United Mills Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR598; 110Ind.Cas.649
Blackwell, J.1. This is a petition to sanction a reduction and reorganization of the capital of a company. The petition is opposed by certain shareholders of the company.2. The capital of the company as fixed by its memorandum of association is Rs. ten crores divided into twenty lacs preference shares of Rs. 10 each and eighty lacs ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each, and the issued and subscribed capital of the company is twenty lacs cumulative preference shares of Rs. 10 each and forty lacs ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. The whole of the issued and subscribed capital has been taken up and fully paid.3. Article 52 of the articles of association of the company provides that the company may from time to time by special resolution reduce its capital as therein indicated. Article 55 of the articles of association of the company is in the following terms:-Whenever the capital, by reason of the issue of preference shares or otherwise, is divided into different classes of shares, all or any of t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhaga Mana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR364
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the Magistrate has convicted the petitioner of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. The facts found are that a Circle Inspector had gone to the wada of the petitioner, under orders of the District Deputy Collector, with a Panch in order to remove an alleged encroachment. He took with him one Lalia, who is the son of a village servant (avethia). This Lalia was asked to remove a portion of a hedge, as being part of the encroachment As goon as Lalia put his scythe in the hedge to do this, the accused came out from his house and caught hold of the scythe and said 'I will see who will remove the encroachment.' Lalia was thus stopped from doing the work, and the Circle Inspector and the Panch, being afraid that if they persisted some mischief might result, went away.2. The petitioner was held thereby to have been guilty of obstructing a public servant, namely, the Circle Inspector, in discharge of his public functions under Section 186, Indian Penal Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulam Kadar Saheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR367
Fawcett, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts as above, proceeded.] Mr. Thakor on behalf of the accused has urged that the order in question cannot be held to fall under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Bombay District Police Act 1890. This clause says:-It shall be the duty of a police-officer to regulate and control the traffic in the streets, to prevent obstructions therein and, to the best of his ability, to prevent the infraction of any rule or order made under this Act or any other law in force for observance by the public in or near the streets.2. His contention is that these words should be considered quite independent of any special circumstances such as arose in the present case, and that it would be absurd to hold that a police constable on traffic duty in a street has the power to stop persons having a right to go along that particular street, and to order them to go by another way to their destination. He also pointed out that Section 48 of the Bomb...
Tag this Judgment!Khatijabibi Umarsaheb Vs. Umarsaheb Ansersaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom285; (1928)30BOMLR447; 110Ind.Cas.131
Madgavkar, J.1. This was a suit by the appellant wife against the respondent husband for a dissolution of marriage under the Sunni Mahomedan law by which the parties are governed and for the amount of the Meher or dower fixed at the time of the marriage, on the ground that the husband had falsely charged her with adultery. The suit was defended by the respondent on the ground that the charge was true. Both the lower Courts have found that the appellant was guilty of adultery and dismissed the suit for divorce, the trial Court holding that the claim for Meher was premature. The wife appeals.2. Before evidence was led in the case, the pleader for the wife; applied that both the parties should be put upon special oath. The Court granted the application and each took an oath under the form prescribed for 'Laan' with the necessary imprecations. The husband asserted, the wife denied the charge. Thereupon the pleader for the wife asked the Court to pass a decree for divorce immediately on the...
Tag this Judgment!Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. the Suryapur Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom252; (1928)30BOMLR549; 110Ind.Cas.33
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff company by its liquidator brought this suit in the High Court on November 24, 1926, against the defendant as its former shareholder based on a claim under Article 28 of Table A which applied to this particular company, viz.:A person whose shares have been forfeited shall cease to be a member in respect of the forfeited shares, but shall, notwithstanding, remain liable to pay to the company all moneys which, at the date of forfeiture) were presently pay if and when the company in respect of the shares, but his liability shall cease if and when the company received payment in full of the nominal amount of the shares.2. The forfeiture in the present case was on March 11, 1922. Accordingly, at the outset a question arises as to what Article of the Indian Limitation Act applies, because if, for instance, Article 115 applies, as has been found by the learned trial Judge, then this suit is barred unless the company can claim exemption for certain per...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang S. Katti Vs. Minnie Henrietta Katti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom117; (1928)30BOMLR350
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate confirming the order passed by the Marylebone Police Court on May 28, 1626, under Section 3 of the Act of 1920 to Facilitate Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 33) whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay to his wife a sum of two pounds a week for maintenance, and a sum of two shillings for costs. The Chief Presidency Magistrate has confirmed the order under Act XVIII of 1921. Rule was issued on the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in revision or otherwise with the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate.2. The principal Act relating to the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrates in reference to married women is the Act of 1895 (58 & 59 Vic. c. 39). Under Section 4 any married woman can apply to a Court of summary jurisdiction for an order of maintenance under the Act. The Act of 1895 is amended by an Act of 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. V, c. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Virappa Mensinkai Vs. Bashettappa Chenbasappa Neeli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom183(1); (1928)30BOMLR465; 110Ind.Cas.710
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the sale through Court held in execution of the decree against the defendant-appellant, the judgment-debtor, is void. The plaintiff-respondent obtained against the judgment-debtor a decree for about Rs. 2,600. The decree-holder proceeded in execution. Execution was transferred to the Collector and the sale of immoveble property was fixed on March 28, 1925. On that day-the precise hour is not on record-the judgment-debtor-appellant deposited Rs. 300 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge who passed the decree and applied for stay and obtained it. But before this order of stay could be transmitted to the Mamlatdar in the same town who was holding the sale, the property was sold for Rs. 2,000. On April 6, 1925, the appellant applied to set aside the sale on the ground that, having obtained the stay, as he urged, before the sale actually took place, the sale was void. The auction-purchaser was not made a party to this application, The t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Bhikachand Vs. the Royal Insurance Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR818
Sections 153 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted if the Courts governed by that statute are to be spared the task in many suits of prosecuting, on most imperfect material, issues, which have no bearing upon that really in contest between the parties.Semble, Section 158 of the Indian Evidence Act is in accordance with the opinions of the Judges in the case of Attorney-General v. Hitchcock (1847) I Ex. 91.Where, in order to corroborate a witness, a letter written by him was tendered and received in evidence under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Judicial Committee, in holding that, under the circumstances, the letter was not properly receivable for any purpose, made the following pertinent observations;.' Its contents ought to have been excluded from judicial consideration in all Courts as completely w they have been ignored by their Lordshipa,'Blanesburgh, J.1. [The following portions of their Lordships' judgment only a...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Mahadev Deshpande Vs. Shriniwas Madhav Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom211; (1928)30BOMLR457; 113Ind.Cas.620
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a dispute between the members of the Deshpande family which enjoyed the watan inam of Chincholi. The suit was by the plaintiffs' father and son for partition, the father being the eldest brother of the eldest branch The main dispute between the parties was as to which property was impartible and which was subject, to partition. The inam grant itself was a vadilki inam, The trial Court held that the grant was a grant of the soil and not of the revenue only, and that apart from the Kadim inams enjoyed by the family prior to the present grants, which were subject to partition, the lands comprised in the grant or which had come into the possession of the inamdar qua-inamdar must be held to be impartible as also the old wada at Sangola. It also allowed the partition subject to the payment by the plaintiffs of Rs. 800 to each of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for their marriage expenses and declined partition of the burden of payment of Rs. 1,000, the subject matter o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »