Mumbai Court February 1928 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Burjorji Nowroji Kelawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR639
Fawcett, J.1. In this case, there has been a committal of the three applicants for trial by the Sessions Judge of Broach on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, In his reasons for commitment the Magistrate has expressed a very strong opinion as to the evidence of certain eye-witnesses not being trustworthy, anil says he thinks that they knew or saw nothing of the incidents think deposed to. On the other hand, in view of certain authorities, he held that the Sessions Court and the assessors might believe the eye-witnesses and convict the accused and that it was incumbent upon him to be prudent and circumspect; and accordingly he committed the accused for trial.2. Mr. Thakor for the applicants has urged that this view is entirely opposed to decisions of this Court such as In re Bai Parvati I.L.R. (1910) Bom. 163: 12 Bom. L.R. 923 and Emperor v. Bai Mahataxmi : AIR1915Bom195 and that there is an error of law on the part of the Magistrate, which justifies the commitment bei...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Daga Bhika Kunbi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom221; (1928)30BOMLR631
Fawcett, J.1. The facts, out of which this application arises, are sufficiently stated in the judgment of the Sessions Judge at Dhulia. Briefly stated, the field, which is the subject matter of the case, had been sold in execution of a money-decree against the accused, and possession had been given to the auction-purchaser in 1914. Obstruction was then offered by the accused sons, but eventually a decree was obtained against them and possession given of the field on December 17, 1926. The decree-holder Batanbai through her husband Shaligram leased the land to the complainant on January 1, 1927. The evidence shows that actual possession was given, the land being ploughed over to a certain extent on behalf of the decree-holder. The accused was not actually present, but he was informed by the bailiff about the possession having been given under this decree and is said to have stated he did not recognize its validity. On January 3, the complainant went to the field with his servants for ha...
Tag this Judgment!The South British Insurancse Co. Ltd. Vs. J.R. Stenson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom260; (1928)30BOMLR745
Patkar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. The defendant intended to insure his motor car and supplied the particulars in a printed form, Exhibit C, which was agreed to be the sole basis of the contract, The plaintiff Insurance Company issued a policy Exhibit A containing a proviso as follows :-No insurance shall be held to befitted until the premium due thereon shall have been paid and accepted in full and that the due observance and fulfilment of the conditions of the Policy, in as far as they relate to anything to be done or not to be done by the insured, shall be a condition precedent to any liability of the Company under this Policy, and in this respect time shall be of the essence of the contract.2. On October 12, 1925, the defendant received a policy purporting to operate from October 1, 1925, with a demand for the premium. The defendant retained the policy, and failed to pay the premium. T...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimabai Jivangouda Patil Vs. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom367; (1928)30BOMLR859; 114Ind.Cas.392
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded.] The validity of the adoption of defendant No. 2 would depend, firstly, on the question whether the authority set up by defendant No. 1 was proved, and, secondly, if the authority was not proved, whether the adoption of defendant No. 2 was valid. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that even if the authority alleged by Bhimabai is not proved, and even if Jivangowda is held not to have separated from Nilkanthagowda, the adoption would be valid according to the ruling in Yadao v. Namdeo (1921) L.R. 48 IndAp 513: 24 Bom. L.R. 609 and Harigir v. Anand Bharathi. , p.c. It is urged on the other hand that if the authority alleged by Bhimabai is not proved, and if Jivangowda and Nilkanthagowda continued to be joint, the adoption of defendant No. 2 would be invalid according to the decision of the Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 782 that the decision of the Privy Council in Harigir v. An...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Pragji Vs. Bhimbhai Dajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom312; (1928)30BOMLR873; 113Ind.Cas.525
Baker, J.1. The point in these appeals la very peculiar. These appeals arise out of two suits which were brought by the plaintiff Bhimbhai Dajibhai and the defendants respectively with regard to an easement. The facts are extremely simple, though they have given rise to a certain amount of confusion in the mind of the trial Court. The question is as to the right of the defendants, by whom 1 mean the defendants in the first suit, to open two windows and arches in the western wall which adjoins the plaintiff's house. There is no dispute as to the facts. The defendants' house was built in 190k The easement regarding the use of light and air for that house commenced in May 1904 and in November 1923 the plaintiff Bhimbhai obstructed the use of these windows and arches by the defendants, but the obstruction was removed by the defendants and the plaintiff has brought the suit on January 3, 1924, for an injunction against the defendants ordering them to remove the windows and not to obstruct h...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom510; (1928)30BOMLR1160
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this Income-tax reference the question in dispute is how in the assessment annexture E of September 21, 1926', ought the companies' stock to be valued. Ought it to be valued by valuing at its true figure the company's stock both at the beginning and at the end of the year in question, or ought only the value of the stock at the end of the year to be taken at its correct figure.2. The assessment is for the year 1926-1927 and is in respect of the profits for the year 1925-26. This is under Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 which imposes a tax in respect of profits of the previous year. Then if one turns to the definition of 'previous year' in Section 2(11), one finds it means 'the twelve months ending on March 31, next preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made', unless, as in the present case, the assessee usually makes up his accounts for a different year. We are told that the assessee makes up his accounts for each year ending D...
Tag this Judgment!Jaigobind Pandey Vs. Ramnandan Sahai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1343
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. These are two consolidated cross-appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated June 12, 1923, which reversed a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Chapra. dated September 20, 1919.2. The issue between the parties is as to ownership of the lands in a village or mauza called Babhangawan, in the Saran district, except a portion of it which measured 33 bighas and 3 kathas; and which is admitted to belong to and to be in the possession of the plaintiffs.3. Proceedings were instituted under the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Magistrate decided that the defendant-appellant was in possession of the lands in dispute, and was entitled to remain in possession until ousted by due course of law.4. Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed the present suit on December 21, 1914.5. They alleged that the entire lands of Mauza Babhangawan were within Mahal Raiputti, Tauzi No. 3142, which belonged to them, that they had b...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Raghunath Deshpande Vs. Govind Chimnaji Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom287; (1928)30BOMLR509; 110Ind.Cas.303
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts as above, proceeded:] On second appeal, it is urged that the lower appellate Court has made out a new case which was not made by the defendants either in the pleadings or in the evidence in the trial Court, that the possession of Chimnaji was not adverse with regard to the undivided one-half share as a tenant-in common, and that the defendants having failed on the points, first, that Chimnaji was born after the adoption in 1855, and, secondly, that plaintiff did not bring this suit within three years after his attaining majority, the lower appellate Court ought to have decided in favour of the plaintiff.2. We think the lower appellate Court ought not to have raised new points in appeal which were not raised by the defendants in the trial Court. The principal question, however, in this appeal is whether Chimnaji acquired a title by adverse possession as a tenant-in-common with regard to the undivided one-half share. It appears from...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnarao Ambadas Pimpladkar Vs. Krishnarao Raghunath Palekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom245; (1928)30BOMLR679
Fawgett, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies.2. The appellant seeks to get this Court to interfere with an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge, by which he refused to alter the valuation of the property to be sold that was entered in a proclamation of sale, or to adjourn the sale in order to have a further enquiry as to its value. Mr. Shingne objects that these are merely administrative orders and not judicial, so as to entitle the appellant to say that they fall under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. He has cited the authority of the Madras Full Bench in Sivagami Achi v. Subrahiriania Ayyar liov (1903) Mad. 259, f.b. which is a leading authority on the point, This was a decision with regard to Section 287 of the Code of 1882, corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 66, of the present Code. It was held that none of the proceedings of a rule Court under Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the rules 'framed there under in relation to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Babasaheb Bhairojirao Ghorpade Vs. Gopal Hanmant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR917; 113Ind.Cas.254
Mirza, J.1. The respondent purchased by a sale-deed dated October 13, 1910, the land in suit, from one Fakirappa and brought this action against the appellant who was in possession. Both the lower Courts have decreed the claim. Mr. Desai on behalf of the appellant has advanced two contentions : (1) that the land in suit is a 'Khushbhas Inam' which is inalienable and (2) the respondent's claim is time-barred.2. The appellant is the Inamdar, His case is that the land is of a service Inam tenure granted by the Inamdar to one Irappa. On the death of Irappa his son Fakirappa agreed to render the service attached to the tenure and so succeeded to the land. In the year 1911 Fakirappa being no longer willing to render the service imposed by the tenure surrendered the land to the Inamdar.3. To take the second point first: Both the lower Courts have held that the appellant went into possession of the land in the year 1911 and that his adverse possession did not commence until July or August 1911...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »