Mumbai Court April 1927 Judgments
Chanbasappa Gurushantappa Hiremath Vs. Baslingayya Gokurnaya Hiremath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom565; (1927)29BOMLR1254
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The question submitted to this Full Bench runs :-Where in a suit parties have referred their differences to arbitration without an order of the Court and an award is made, can a decree in terms of the award he passed by the Court under Order XXIII, Rule 3, or otherwise?2. The referring judgment further states that it is to be understood in answering this question that no point arises here to the effect that subsequently to the award, the parties agreed to treat the award as an agreement or compromise of their claims. Nothing of that sort happened. That being so, we have to consider the question under two headings, viz., (a) a decree passed under Order XXIII, Rule 3, and (6) a decree passed 'otherwise'.3. Turning first to Order XXIII, Rule 3, that runs as follows :-Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been, adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Canji Matani Vs. Ebrahim Fazalbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom581; (1927)29BOMLR1296
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rangnekar raises an interesting point of partnership law, which has been excellently argued by counsel on both sides. The question is whether, when a plaintiff brings a suit for debt against a partnership firm as such, but the firm has been dissolved to the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the suit, it is necessary to add the legal personal representatives of the deceased partner as parties, in order to enable execution to be levied against the estate of the deceased partner. It is conceded that the partnership assets may be taken in satisfaction of a decree in a suit so framed. But can the estate of the deceased partner be reached irrespective of his share in the partnership assets Mr. Justice Rangnekar held that in such a case it is necessary to add the legal personal representatives, and that as these representatives were not parties to the original suit but were added subsequently when the period of limita...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. S.V. Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom518; (1927)29BOMLR1012; 103Ind.Cas.834
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the accused has been tried on a charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 45(c) of the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. Act V of 1878) for violation of the conditions Nos. 5, 9 and 11 of the license. The accused has been found guilty of that charge and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days....2. The next question is whether the accused is shown to have violated conditions 5, 9 and 11 of his license. The 6th condition is that the licensee shall not sell ordinary denatured spirit except in full corked and capsuled quart or pint bottles. The evidence of Mr. Reporter on this point is that he found while searching the shop that the bottles in which the spirit was kept were not quart bottles, but that they were of larger capacity, that nearly two-thirds of the bottles were filled, and that the bottles were sealed, but were not capsuled. The bottles in the shop were proved by him to be not ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kadarbhai Usufalli Bohri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom483; (1927)29BOMLR987; 103Ind.Cas.593
Fawcett, J.1. In this appeal by the Government of Bombay, there are only two questions before us. The first is, whether under Section 39 of the Indian Forest Act (Act VII of 1876) and the Notification of the Government of Bombay No. 9475, dated January 5, 1925, timber or other forest produce of the kind mentioned in the schedule to the Notification, is liable to a levy of duty as prescribed in the Notification, when brought into the East Khandesh district, not directly from one of the States mentioned in the Notification (in this case the Indore State), but from Harda in the Central Provinces, to which it had been removed from that State. The second point is, whether, supposing the timber was not liable to this levy, the Range Forest Officer was acting 'in the discharge of his public functions' within the meaning of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, BO that the obstruction offered by the accused in the case was punishable under that section. Both these questions have been discussed...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jehangir Ardeshir Cama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom501; (1927)29BOMLR996
Madgavkar, J.1. The accused, Jehangir Ardeshir Rustomji Cama, a Deputy Collector under suspension, was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate, Mr. Willis, under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on three charges in this case and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months further simple imprisonment on each of the first two charges, and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further three months simple imprisonment on the third charge, the sentences to run consecutively. In appeal he was acquitted in respect of the third charge, and the convictions and sentences on the first two charges were maintained. He has applied in revision to this Court against his convictions and sentences. Government have also applied to enhance the sentences. The result is that under Section 439(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused, as he was entitled, has exercised his right to show cause against his convict...
Tag this Judgment!Harkisondas Lakhmidas Pyarathi Vs. Nariman Dadabhoy Parsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom479; (1927)29BOMLR950
Patkar, J.1. In this case, there was a decree on July 27, 1922, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 354-4-0. The decretal amount was ordered to bo paid by annual instalments of Rs. 80, and if two instalments remained due and unpaid, the whole of the amount remaining due was to be recovered at once. The judgment-debtor paid into Court Rs. 80, and he was given a receipt on December 14, 1923, in payment of the second instalment. Another payment of Rs. 80 was made on December 15, 1924, and he was given a receipt for the third instalment; and a third payment of Rs. 80 was made and he was given a receipt, on December 15, 1925, as for the fourth instalment. The decree-holder in January 1926 sought to recover two instalments, but on receiving the instalment of Rs. 80 paid into Court on December 15, 1925, he made an application for the recovery of only one instalment and was allowed to do so by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. It is now contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that as he obtai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›