Mumbai Court November 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. Gopal Raghunath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR148
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by accused No. 1, Gopal, against his conviction, and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 489B, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Nasik. The first point of law raised before us on his behalf is that the joinder of the charge of which he has been convicted, with the other charges, was illegal, and is not covered by Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant, accused No. 1, with two others, accused Nos. 2 and 3, acquitted in the lower Court, were all privy to the counterfeiting and passing of false currency notes, and committed offences under Sections 489 Article 489 B and 489 D of the Indian Penal Code. The committing Magistrate had charged all three of them with offences under these three sections. Before the trial commenced in the Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge elaborated the charges into, first, a conspiracy under these three sections, alternative...
Syed Sadeck Abdulla Vs. Mahomed Abdulla Hassanalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR225
Patkar, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Resident at Aden, declining to make a reference to this Court under Section 8 of the Aden Courts Act II of 1864. The petitioner in this ease filed suit No. 31 of 1927 in the Court of the Resident at Aden for a declaration that the surety bond executed by him in suit No. 318 of 1923 should be set aside and for a declaration that the decree in that suit should not be executed against him as a surety. The learned Assistant Resident and Judge at Aden dismissed the suit holding that as no order had been passed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff's suit ought to fail. On appeal, the Resident refused to make a reference on the ground that the suit did not lie and therefore an appeal did not lie, and on the merits also he held that the present suit did not lie as an appeal lay from an order under Order XXXVIII, Rule 3, and the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code...
Yellappa Ramappa Naik Vs. Tippanna Laxman Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR249
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. It was dated February 29, 1924, and it reversed a decree of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum dated August 28, 1919.2. The suit was brought by the respondent for a half share in property possessed by the appellants for many years as after mentioned.3. The appellants were distant kinsmen of the respondent.4. The family genealogy is thus set out.5. The suit was brought in 1916. The case was most carefully tried by the Subordinate Judge. One cannot peruse his judgment and the relative evidence without being struok by the accuracy and minuteness of his exposition and the apparent correctness of 'his conclusions.6. Had the case been considered by the High Court as one to be determined merely upon the facts proved, their Lordships do not doubt that that Court would have reached the same conclusion as the Subordinate Judge. The High Court, however, in a brief deliverance, reversed the...
Gopal Raghunath Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.243
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by accused No. 1, Gopal, against his conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 439B, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Nasik. The first point of law raised before us on his behalf is that the joinder of the charge of which he has been convicted, with the other charges, was illegal, and is not covered by Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant accused No 1, with two others, accused Nos. 2 and 3, acquitted in the lower Court, were all privy to the counterfeiting and passing of false currency notes, and committed offences under Sections 489A, 489B and 489D of the Indian Penal Code. The Committing Magistrate had charged all three of them with offences under these three sections. Before the trial commenced in the Court of Session, the learned Sessions Judge elaborated the charges into, first, a conspiracy under these three sections, alternatively with off...
Syed Sadeck Abdulla Vs. Mahomed Abdulla Hassanalli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.407
Patkar, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Resident at Aden, declining to make a reference to this Court under Section 8 of the Aden Courts Act II of 1864, The petitioner in this case filed Suit No. 31 of 1927 in the Court of the Resident at Aden for a declaration that the surety bond executed by him in Suit No. 318 of 1923, should be set aside and for a declaration that the decree in that suit should not be executed against him as a surety. The learned Assistant Resident and Judge at Aden dismissed the suit holding that as no order had been passed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff's suit ought to fail On appeal, the Resident refused to make reference on the ground that the suit did not lie and, therefore, an appeal did not lie, and on the merits also he held that the present suit did not lie as an appeal lay from an order under Order XXXVIII, Rule 3, and the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code...
Emperor Vs. Amanat Kadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR146
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, East Khandesh, inviting us to set aside the proceedings in a second complaint of which the Magistrate took cognizance after he had discharged the same accused in the first complaint by the same complainant on the same facts and in respect of the same alleged offence. The District Magistrate thought that by this action of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the second complaint, he had arrogated to himself the functions of the District Magistrate or Sessions Judge, and though there was no express prohibition in the Criminal Procedure Code against a Magistrate accepting a second complaint after he had passed an order of discharge the whole intention of the law must be held to be against such a procedure, and that there were no decisions of the Bombay High Court on the point.2. The learned District Magistrate is mistaken. The defence of autrefois acquit has no application to the case of a discharge, and it has been held by...
Mahadu Tukaram Satav Vs. Patlu Sadu Satav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR221
Patkar, J.1. In execution of a decree obtained by opponent No. 3 against opponents Nos. 1 and 2, the property in suit was sold by the Collector on January 16, 1926, to the applicant. The judgment-debtor on January 25 deposited into Court the decretal amount with five per cent, of the purchase money under Order XXI, Rule 89, and on the same day an application, Exhibit 22, was made to the Mamlatdar stating that the amount of Rs. 519-12-0 was deposited into Court and praying that the auction should not be sanctioned. On March 22, 1926, the judgment-debtor applied to the Court to set aside the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application made to the Mamlatdar was really an application for setting aside the sale which ought to have been sent for disposal to the Court, and that the application made to the Court was a continuation of Exhibit 2'J before the Mamlatdar.2. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that, in view of the deposit of the decretal amount on January 25...
Narhar Narayan Deshpande Vs. Ganpati Hari Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR218; 117Ind.Cas.438
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to eject the defendants-respondents. Both the lower Courts held against the plaintiff, who appeals.2. The lands were part of the Kulkarni vatan lands of the A.C.J. appellant's family. The appellant's father, who was a Kulkarni Vatandar, passed in 1886 a miraspatra or permanent lease in favour of the father of the defendant-respondent No. 1, The lessor died in 1895 and was succeeded by the appellant. From 1895 to 1919 the appellant who was admittedly aware of the permanent lease and its entry in the Record of Rights took no steps to set it aside but on the contrary took the rent recited in the permanent lease from the respondents from year to year until he brought the present suit in 1923. The trial Court held that the appellant was estopped from bringing the present suit and that it was barred by limitation, not having been brought within twelve years of his father's death and his own succession...
Juggi Lal-kamalapat Vs. the Swadeshi Mills Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR285
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is a case of the class which is generally known as a passing off action.2. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents before this Board, are a milling company who deal largely in Indian cloths, and who, in connection with the sale of that Indian cloth use certain trademarks. In several of those trademarks, either in conjunction or alone, the lotus flower is the leading feature. Now their complaint is that the defendants, who are appellants before this Board, suddenly began to use trademarks which, though if critically looked at by a person of such literacy as to have critical powers of observation would not be confused, yet would be apt to be confused by the illiterate and unobservant; and in particular did despite to them for this reason that their trademark had really got to be associated with the name of 'Lotus,' so that their cloth was known as 'Lotus cloth,' and that a person coming and asking for 'Lotus cloth' might be satisfied by having cloth delivered ...
Emperor Vs. Ganpat Devaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR144
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application in revision by Ganpat Devaji Patil who was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Jalgaon, under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. His conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, East Khandesh.2. The only argument urged for the applicant is that the false statement which forms the subject-matter of the charge was sworn to before the Nazir of the Subordinate Court of Yaval, who had in law no authority to administer an oath for the purposes of any affidavit or statement to be used before the District Magistrate, as it was in this case, and that the proper person before whom the affidavit should have been made was a Magistrate, as laid down by Section 539 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to find authority for the Nazir other than this Court's Civil Circular 39. That, h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »