Mumbai Court October 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.
Emperor Vs. Dinshaw Cursetji Driver
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR49; 117Ind.Cas.331
Mirza, J.1. It is conceded on behalf of the Government of Bombay that apart from certain incriminating statements made by the accused to an excise peon, which statements were excluded by the Magistrate from evidence, the evidence on the record would not be sufficient to convict accused No. 3 or accused No. 4. The only point, therefore, which we have to consider in this appeal and its companion revision application is whether those statements were rightly excluded by the Magistrate from being admitted in evidence.2. In the recent Full Bench decision of Nanoo v. Emperor I.L.R (1926) Bom. 78,: 28 Bom. L.R. 1196. the authorities on the point were exhaustively gone into and considered. The Government Pleader distinguishes that case from the present on the ground that what the Full Bench had to decide related to statements made to excise officers on whom powers of investigating the offence had been conferred. He contends that an excise peon is not an officer on whom any such powers are confe...
The Gujerat Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. the Motilal Hirbhai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1331
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The parties here are two Mill Companies engaged in the cotton trade and owning adjoining properties. The dispute in the present case concerns the right of the plaintiffs (the Motilal Hirabhai Spinning and Manufacturing Company, Limited) to use a siding connecting with the railway siding of the B.B. & C.I. Railway Company.2. [After referring to the map, His Lordship proceeded :]3. The plaintiffs' case is that at all material dates the same persons were the agents of all these three Mill Companies, and that in the common interest the agents applied for and obtained the railway siding in question; that the expenses not borne by the railway company were subsequently divided between the three Mills; and that thereafter for many years the plaintiff company used the siding L.E.A.F. X B; and that subsequently being improperly obstructed in such user by the defendants, they have become entitled to an injunction to restrain such obstruction.4. The defendants' case is...
Rabia Mahomed Tahir Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR211; 117Ind.Cas.431
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this reference the question whether the G.I.P. Railway are liable to the representatives of the deceased workman depends on the word 'ordinarily' in Article 12(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The G.I.P. Railway gave out certain work to a contractor, and the question arises whether the execution of that work was 'ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal,' namely, the G.I.P. Railway.2. The work in question was the erection of steel towers to carry overhead cables in connection with the electrification of the G.I.P. Railway line beyond Kalyan. Hitherto the motive power beyond Kalyan has been steam, or oil, and the line is now to be electrified. The precise facts, as found by the Commissioner, are:-The G.I.P. Railway, in connection with the electrification of their line are building a Power Station near Kalyan, and are constructing a transmission line to carry electric power to various sub-stations on the railway. The work of con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›