Mumbai Court August 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.
In Re: Maneklal Garbaddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom47
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476B, Criminal Procedure Code, against an order made by the Sessions Judge of Kaira ordering a complaint to be filed for the offence of perjury with regard to statements made by Maneklal Garbaddas before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad on November 20, 1925. Maneklal Garbaddas was examined as a witness at a trial held by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in a a case which was committed to the Sessions Court of Ahmedabad by the Resident First Class Magistrate at Borsad. The witness gave evidence in that 'case and the case was decided on November 21 1925.2. By a Government Notification, dated October 6, 1925, after January 1, 1926, the District Judge of Kafra was constituted a Sessions Division distinct from the Sessions division of Ahmedabad under the t name of the Sessions Divisions of Kaira. An application was made by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Sessions case to which I have referred, to-the Court of Session at...
Herbert Whitworth Ltd. Vs. Jamnadas Nemchand Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom227; (1928)30BOMLR514; 110Ind.Cas.312
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a passing-off case brought in the Aden Court. The trial Judge thought that the defendant's goods would not deceive the public into thinking they were the goods of the plaintiffs, and he dismissed the suit. The learned Resident on appeal has taken the opposite view, and referred the matter to us under the Aden Act.2. We are not dealing here with a case of registered trade marks. What the plaintiff alleges in paragraph 3 of his amended plaint is that-the plaintiff company has for a number of years imported and sold in Aden white shirtings which are designated to the public by a ticket bearing a mark being a Somali on horseback; that the goods are known in Aden, Somali Coast, and tied Sea Port markets as' Abu Kheyl, and that a sample of the said White Shirtings and mark is hereto anuexed and marked ' A.' And white shirtings which are designated to the public by a ticket bearing a mark being a Somali girl. The goods are known in Aden, Somali Coast, and ...
Gangaram Tillockchand Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom643; (1927)29BOMLR1511
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal relates to the amount of duty payable under the Court Fees Act, 1870, Article 11 of Schedule I, as amended by Bombay Act III of 1926, which came into force on April 1, 1926. Stated shortly, the Court fee in question may be described as probate duty.2. The point at issue between the parties is whether the amount of the duty ought to be calculated at the rate in force under the law as it stood at the date of the petition for probate, or whether it should be calculated at the higher rate of duty which came into operation before any grant of probate was made.3. The petitioner is the executor of the will of the deceased Shamdas Hiranand who died on December 3, 1923, and he has paid the sum of Rs. 28,439 for duty at or prior to his petition being presented and filed on February 24, 1926. If, however, the amending Act of 1926 applies, then additional duty to the extent of about Rs. 18,861 is payable. A difference having arisen between the Testamentary ...
The Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasudev Baburao Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom5; (1927)29BOMLR1551
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is one of those cases which, though petty in amount, involve legal points of importance and some difficulty. The subject-matter of the dispute is a humble cask of iron nails. The plaintiff who is a merchant at Honawar had a dalal at Bombay. The latter sent this case of nails together with other cases and some other goods by the 88: Indravati of the defendant company for being delivered to the plaintiff at Honawar harbour. The company's bill of lading was sent by the plaintiff's dalal to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented it to the company at Honawar, and got delivery of all the goods except the suit cask of nails. The plaintiff then called on the company to deliver the suit cask. The answer was; 'it was lost over-board in unloading through an accident due to the ship rolling, and we are not liable under the terms of our contract contained in the bill of lading.'2. The plaintiff nevertheless brought his suit. The trial Court held that the loss was d...
Nathabhai Devidas Vs. Vaghjibhai Jhaverbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom20; (1927)29BOMLR1577
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this matter the learned District Judge on a petition under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, has purported to remove from their office the trustees appointed by the will of the father of the-minor. This he has done on a petition presented not by the next friend of the minor but by his uncle Vaghjibhai. As the learned Judge in his judgment puts it, although the application refers to other sections of the Indian Trusts Act, viz., 72 and 74, yet it is really founded on Section 73 on the ground that the trustees have become unlit to act in the trust.2. The view generally adopted in the English Courts is that those words imply something in the nature of personal incapacity like, for instance, paralysis or personal unfitness which in many cases has been held to apply to insolvency. In this particular section insolvency has been provided for. But whatever the true construction of the words 'unfit or personally incapable' in Section 73 may be, one has also to see who...
Vidyagavri Hargovandas Narottamdas Vs. Narandas Kashidas Mugatwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom74(1); (1928)30BOMLR139; 108Ind.Cas.492
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a petition for letters of administration of the property and credits of Hargovandas Narotamdas, deceased. The petitioner is his widow, and the defendant is the eon of the paternal uncle of the deceased and has filed a caveat against the grant of administration to the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the caveat the grounds relied upon were (1) that the deceased husband of the plaintiff was a member of a joint and undivided Hindu family of which the defendant also was a member, and that the property belonged to the said joint family; (2) that the petitioner was married to the deceased under the Special Marriage Act III of 1872, in the year 1918, and therefore the property of the deceased would be governed by the Indian Succession Act, and the petitioner would be entitled to a half of the share of the deceased in the joint family property.2. It may be stated that at the death of the deceased his mother was alive, but she died, it is not clear when, but ce...
Emperor Vs. Kallasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom629; (1927)29BOMLR1478
Patkar, J.1. In this ease the accused were tried on a charge under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted. They have been again charged under Section 61(o) of the Bombay District Police Act, IV of 1890. The accused were acquitted in the previous case as it was found that the public peace was not disturbed. The question that arises for decision is whether the acquittal in the previous case bars the present prosecution. The evidence in the present case will be exactly the same evidence that was led in the previous case. Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code says:-A person who has once been tried by a, Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 236, or for which he might...
Lakshman Punju Shet Vs. Krishnaji Maharu Bhoi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1425
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The learned District Judge has unfortunately fallen into an error here. The document to be proved was a mortgage. On the face of it there were two attesting witnesses. One was dead, and therefore he could not bo called. The plaintiff called the other in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the case being prior to the recent amending Act XXXI of 1926. That attesting witness then denied he had anything whatever to do with the document. Accordingly under Section 71 it was open to the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the document by other evidence. This ho proceeded to do, He called the writer not as an attesting witness, but to prove that the document was executed by the mortgagor, and also attested by these two attesting witnesses. We have read the evidence of the writer, Ex. 16. He does depose to these essential matters, viz., not only the execution by the mortgagor, but also the attestation by the two witnesses. And strange to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›