Mumbai Court January 1928 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.
Bhagwati Vs. Banarsi Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR834
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.2. The question is a short and simple one. It arises under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, Clause 1, Sub-section (g), and the bearing thereon of the terms of a particular contract of sale.3. The parties were vendor and vendee of a certain piece of immoveable property. Section 55 is expressed in terms of a very absolute and clear character. It provides, the irrelevant parts of the section baing omitted, that in the absence of 'a contract to the contrary,' the buyer and the sailer of iinmoveable property are subject to liabilities and have rights, in the enumeration of the elementary proposition that the seller is bound to discharge all incumbrances then existing on the property. It is said, however, that this statutory obligation was negatived in the particular circumstances of this case by reason of the terms of the...
Emperor Vs. Ismail Khadirsab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom130; (1928)30BOMLR330; 108Ind.Cas.501
Fawcett, J.1. The accused in this case was charged with having murdered his wife at Gersappa in the Kanara District either on March 31, 1927, or during the early morning of -April 1. It is common ground that his wife was sleeping with him in the verandah of the accused's house, and that next day her body was found in the river adjoining the accused's house with a wound upon the throat, which is described as a gaping flesh wound four inches long, and one inch wide and about half an inch deep in the lower half of the wound, while superficial in the upper half. The accused went and gave information in the morning about his wife being missing to two police-officers in the village. But although they then went and saw the body, it was not actually taken out till after 4 p. m. that same day, because they waited until the police patil of a neighbouring village came. After the Panchnama had been drawn up, the body was sent to Honavar in order that the post-mortem examination might be made. That...
Annabhat Shankarbhat Alvandi Vs. Shivappa Dundappa Manvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom232; (1928)30BOMLR539; 110Ind.Cas.269
Patkar, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover Rs. 7,144-8-9 with future interest from the defendants. Defendant No. 1 had dealings with the shop of the plaintiff since 1911 and passed to the plaintiff's firm several acknowledgments of his liability on account of the trading firm of which he was a partner. Defendant No. 2 was joined in the suit on the ground that defendant No. 2 as son was liable for the debts incurred by defendant No. 1 in respect of the trade transactions as manager of the joint family.2. Defendant No. 1 contended that he was one of the six persons who entered into cotton dealings with the plaintiff under the Khata of 'Kshap Manvi and Annabhat Alvandi,' that the loss came to about Its. 9,600 and as his liability was limited by agreement to the extent of Rs. 1,600, he signed an acknowledgment for Rs. 4,800 on behalf of the three' partners owning an eight annas share along with him, and that he was an agriculturist, that accounts should be taken under the Dekk...
Shanker Appaji Patil Vs. Gangaram Bapuji Nagude
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom236; (1928)30BOMLR503
Patkar, J.1. This is a second appeal against the order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar in proceedings arising out of Suit No. 67 of 1915. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for possession of the land with mesne profits. On July 10, 1917, he obtained a decree for possession, and a preliminary decree was passed under Order XX, Rule 12, of the Civil Procedure Code, directing an inquiry into the mesne profits. There were two appeals filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 which were dismissed. The plaintiff obtained possession of the land; and filed applications in 1919 and 1921 for ascertainment of mesne profits which were not prosecuted. The present application No. 7 of 1923 is made for ascertainment of mesne profits against the defendants and the surety who made himself liable for the decretal amount to the extent of Rs. 800. The Subordinate Judge held that the application for a final decree for mesne profits was barred by limitation. On appeal, the learned Distric...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Yello Ramchandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom215; (1928)30BOMLR581
Fawcett, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain order passed1 by the Collector of Dharwar under Section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act III of 1874 was ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 was, as he stated in para. 2 of his plaint, the sole representative watandar Kulkarni of Hirebudhihal in the Dharwar District. Plaintiff No. 2 was his son, In the year 1914 a certain circular was issued by the Collector of Dharwar, Exhibit 31, explaining the terms on which Government had sanctioned commutation of Kulkarniki watans under Section 15 of the Watan Act, that is to say, the terms on which Government had authorized the Collector to come to agreements with the holders of Kulkarniki watans under Section 15 : and the Mamlatdar was directed to ascertain whether watandar Kulkarnis in his taluka consented to those conditions, and if so, to get applications from them stating their consent, so that further a...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Yello Ramohandra Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: 111Ind.Cas.268
Fawcett, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain order passed by the Collector of Dharwar under Section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act III of 1874 was ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 was, as he stated in para. 2 of his plaint, the sole representative watandar Kulkarni of Hirebudhihal in the Dharwar District. Plaintiff No. 2 was his son. In the year 1914 a certain. circular was issued by the Collector of Dharwar, Ex. 31, explaining the terms on which Government had sanctioned commutation of Kulkarniki watans under Section 15 of the Watan Act, that is to say, the terms on which Government had authorized the Collector to come to agreements with the holders of Kulkarniki watans under Section 15: and the mamlatdar was directed to ascertain whether watandar Kulkarnis in his taluka consented to those conditions, and if so, to get applications from them stating their consent, so that further action...
Emperor Vs. HusseIn Gulam Nabi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR373
Fawcett, J.1. We agree with the view taken by the Sessions Judge that he had power to require bonds under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even although the actual order was not made at the time of passing sentence, or rather confirming the sentence that has been already passed by the Magistrate. There is nothing in Sub-section (3) of Section 106 to limit the time when the order can be made by the appellate Court, so long as it is acting, in fact, as an appellate Court; and it has already been ruled by this Court in Emperor v. Bhausing Dhumalsing I.L.R (1908) Bom. 33, s. c. 10 Bom. L.R. 759 that Sub-section (1) of Section 106 does not control or limit the powers conferred on an appellate Court or revisional Court by Sub-section (3) of the same section. In this case the Sessions Judge was moved in the matter of taking steps under that sub-section at the time when the appeal was before him, and his proceedings were in continuation of the appellate proceedings. The application ...
Emperor Vs. Bhau Dharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom140; (1928)30BOMLR385
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Thana points out that the Magistrate examined the accused on July 19 and 20, 1927, and that two prosecution witnesses, Govind and Bhikaji, were subsequently examined, but the accused were not further examined in regard to their evidence. He submits that there has, therefore, been an illegality which vitiates the proceedings in accordance with rulings of this Court such as Emperor v. B.N. Gamadia : (1925)27BOMLR1405 . There certainly has not been a compliance with the provisions of b. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code that 'the Magistrate shall question the accused generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.' This is not a case of mere omission to examine an accused after further cross-examination and re-examination of prosecution witnesses that have already been examined-in-chief before the statement of the accused is taken, as in Emperor v. Gamadia : (1925...
Emperor Vs. Hanma Timma Bhandiwaddar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom145(1); (1928)30BOMLR383
Fawcett, J.1. The Second Class Magistrate, Haveri, convicted the accused, Hanma, of two offences : (1) under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code in that he with another person shared cash, viz., Rs. 2, knowing those rupees to he stolen property, and (2)under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code in that he assisted in concealing other stolen property. He sentenced the accused to suffer four months' rigorous imprisonment under each of these two Sections 411 and 414, and directed the sentences to run consecutively. The District Magistrate is of opinion that the Second Class Magistrate had no power to pass consecutive sentences for the two offences and has referred the case to us for orders.2. The Magistrate, in his judgment, has noticed this particular point and he says that the act of receiving the Rs. 2 stolen cash was committed in the afternoon and the act of concealing the other property was committed in the morning of the same day, and that the two acts were also done at different p...
Hari Govind Phadke Vs. Gangubai Balwant Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom417; (1928)30BOMLR500
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff applied for execution of the decree in Kegular Suit No. 377 of 1910 to recover the balance of Rs. 134-13-2 and relied upon an endorsement of part-payment of the principal of the decretal debt by the judgment-debtor Gangubai. The endorsement was as follows:-Rs. 5 Vasul dated February 16, 1922, by the hand of Gangu mard Balwanta.' Below this endorsement Gangu has made a thumb-impression which is described by one Vithoba Ramji as being the thumb-impression of Gangu mard Balwanta. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the part-payment of the decretal debt evidenced by this endorsement gave a starting point of limitation to the decree-holder. The lower appellate Court disagreed with the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the description of the thumb-impreasion was made by Vithoba Ramji, whereas the endorsement, below which the thumb-impression was made by Gangu, was not in the handwriting of Vithoba Ramji, that under the proviso to Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »