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.
Lingo Raoji Kulkarni Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom201; (1928)30BOMLR570
Fawcett, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was art brought by two of the three representative watandara of the of State village of Kurdikeri in the Dharwar District and the heirs of the third representative watandar of the same village for a declaration that their Kulkarni rights in that village were unaffected by certain transactions between them and the Government in 1916, and for damages. The main allegation was that the Collector of Dharwar had ordered a commutation of their service rights under Section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, without the consent of the holder of the watan that is required under that section, and therefore, that order was ultra vires, so that it did not affect the plaintiffs' rights in regard to this wafcan, The Secretary of State in his written statement denied that the order was ultra viras, and pleaded that the requisite consent had been given. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 4(a) of the Bombay Revenue Jur...
Balaram Vs. Naktu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR821
Sinha, J1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces reversing a judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional District Judge of Bhandara in Suit No. 63 of 1921.2. The facts out of which the suit arose are as follows:3. Mauza Chulod in Pergatma Kampta, District Bhandara, C.P. was put up for auction sale by the Collector under a decree obtained by R.B. ludraraj Bhao, Zemindar of Kampta, against the sub-proprietors of Chulod who had failed to pay him the revenue, cesses and niaiikana payable by them under the C.P. Land Revenue Act. On October 28, 1907, it was knocked down to Naktu for Rs. 3,810, of which Ks. 1,000 were paid at once and Rs. 2,810 on November 12, 1907. The sale was confirmed in due course on December 5, 1907, and sale certificate issued to who was put in possession by the Court Officer, on June 5, 1908. On October 27, 1919, i. e., just one day short of twelve years Lord sinha after the auction sale,...
Raoji Bhagu More Vs. Raghunath Vithal Kothale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom187; (1928)30BOMLR495
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff sued in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sahara to recover a sum of Rs. 150 upon a promissory note, which he alleged was executed by the defendant on May 10, 1920. The defendant) denied the execution of the promissory note and the receipt of any money from the plaintiff. Evidence was taken before the First Class Subordinate Judge, and among other things the defendant was made to impress his thumb-mark upon a paper in the Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the promissory note was at least suspicious and that no consideration had been proved In his judgment he discussed the oral evidence that had been given before him, and in regard to the question of the thumb-impression upon the promissory-note he remarked :-It is not a very certain test. But leaving out the thumb impression on defendant's written statement and Vakalnt as being not very clear, the thumb impression on the summons and that specially ta...
Emperor Vs. Ganu Sadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR371
Fawcett, J.1. In this case a complaint was made against the two applicants and four others that they had forcibly opened the door of the complainant's house, dragged him out into the verandah, and then assaulted him so as to have committed offences under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 506, Indian Penal Code. A complaint was made to the Resident First Class Magistrate, Karad. He held a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code; and as he found that the complainant's story was supportted by two witnesses, he ordered process to issue under the sections I have mentioned, except Section 452, which he cut out. On the accused appearing, the Magistrate tried the case summarily and eventually acquitted all but the two petitioners. In regard to them he held that it was proved that they had given the complainant a beating, and he convicted them under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and directed each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 60. An application was then made to the Sessions Jud...
Emperor Vs. Merwanji M. Mistry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR375
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the opponent, the owner of certain stable premises, was prosecuted for offences under Section 471 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, in having allowed stable litter to be kept on his premises, and having allowed dung from these premises to pass into certain drain in contravention of provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act. There were two separate cases which came up for hearing before the Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, on July 26, 1927. It was then represented on behalf of the accused that the accumulations of stable litter had been removed and that the obstruction to the drains was due to the action of tenants and that also would be removed. The Magistrate thereupon postponed the cases to August 9, 1927, in order to give the opponent an opportunity of removing the accumulations and obstructions complained of, and of furnishing the names of the tenants that were referred to. On August 9, the Magistrate was informed, as the petition admits to...
Emperor Vs. Ambaji Dhakyaji Katkari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom143; (1928)30BOMLR380
Fawcett, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts proceeded;] The District Magistrate is of opinion that the conviction is wrong, inasmuch as the first acquittal of the accused under Section 173, Indian Penal Code, acts as a bar to further proceedings by virtue of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code. He is of opinion that both the second and third trials were illegal. In support of his view he quotes certain notes below Section 403 at p. 849 of Sohoni's Criminal Procedure Code. I have referred to those notes, and they cite decisions under which a person is said to be 'tried' within the meaning of Section 403, although the case against him is dismissed owing to non-appearance of the complainant, or although the case has been withdrawn, or for other similar reasons he has been discharged or acquitted without an ordinary trial, The question, however, still remains whether Sub-section (4) of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, does not apply in the present case. This subsection says:-...
Kharshetji Ratanji Bomanji Vs. Kekobad S. Khambatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom194; (1928)30BOMLR473
Davar, J.1. This is a petition presented by Mr. Kharsetji Ratanji Bomanji and Mr. Fardoonji Dorabji Padamaji, two of the executors and trustees, for probate of the last will and testament, dated June 5, 1919, and codicil dated October 27, 1921, of one Jerbai Sorabji Kavasji Khambatta, who died in Bombay on or about April 27, 1927. To this petition, caveat was tiled by Kekobad Sorabji Khambatta and Pirojahaw Sorabji Khambatta, two of the sons o? the testatrix. On the filing of the caveat, the proceedings were turned into a suit and the suit is numbered Suit No. 14 of 1927f. The two petitioners are the executors and trustees under the will, along with one Mr. S.B. Bomanji, who is now absent in Europe and whose rights are reserved to come in and apply for probate if he deems fit to do so. Under the will the testatrix has appointed another executor, her son Kekobad, conditionally upon his permanently residing in Bombay. Kekobad is one of the caveators and he is at present a permanent resid...
Emperor Vs. Babulal Behari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR321; 108Ind.Cas.508
Madgavkar, J.1. The question for my decision is, whether the opinion with its reasons of the police finger print expert Mr. Saldanha on the identity of a certain palm impression of one of the accused with the palm impression on the pot found on the scene of offence on April 28, 1927, is or is not admissible in evidence.2. The facts shortly are that on April 28, 1927, a Marwari boy was found murdered in a room and the safe rifled of valuable ornaments. Among other clues such as a Bhaiya cap and some mangoes, a handa or brass pot of water bore the impression of a palm upon it. That impression was photographed and enlarged and subsequently-the precise dates are not on record-Mr. Patel the senior expert and Mr. Saldanha the junior expert took and compared twenty-one palm impressions including those of the principal accused and witnesses and other Pardeshis with the impression found on the handa.3. There has been unfortunately considerable delay in the trial of this case. The seven accused ...
Shankar Tukaram Kakade Vs. Lakshmibai Shankarrao Ghadge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom225; (1928)30BOMLR470
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff employed one Baburao and two others as her agents authorizing them to look after the immoveable property and to collect rents, lease out lands and file assistance suits in connection only with the immoveable property by a power of attorney, Exhibit 35, executed on July 25, 1919. Baburao, who was in. physical possession of some of the ornaments of Laxmibai, pawned them to the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The plaintiff having learnt of the pawn filed the present suit for a declaration that the pawn was not binding on her, and sued to recover possession of the pawned articles from defendants Nos. 2 to 4. the learned Assistant Judge who heard the suit held that the plaint pawn did not bind the plaintiff as Baburao was not in juridical possession of the ornaments within the meaning of Section 178 of the Indian Contract Act, and ordered defendants Nos. 2 to 4 to restore the articles pawned with them or their value Rs. 1,500. On appeal, the learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›