Mumbai Court February 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. Rama Deoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom231; (1928)30BOMLR636
Fawcett, J.1. This is a petition by the Government of Bombay to enhance the sentence of fine of Rs. 7, imposed by an Honorary Presidency Magistrate upon the accused Rama Deoji under Rule 27-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. This rule says: 'No person shall, when intoxicated, drive a motor vehicle in a public place.' Information was laid that the accused had without any kind of warning suddenly swerved to his right in order to go to the Cooperage Maidan for parking his car, and in doing so he ran into a cir which was on tb. 9 proper side of the road, with the result that damage was done to the mudguards of both the cars, and that at the time of the collision the accused was under the influence of liquor. Upon this the Magistrate issued a summons to the accused calling upon him to appear and answer a charge of driving a motor car while under the influence of liquor, and so hiving contravened Rule 27 A of the Motor Vehicles Rules.2. The record of the trial in the column of 'offence complaine...
Anant Krishna Modak Vs. Sarasvatibai Padmanabh Shetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom316; (1928)30BOMLR709
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued the defendants on a promissory note dated August 20, 1920, for Rs. 1,200. The note was passed under the following circumstances : The plaintiff had given Rs. 800 and some gold to Padmanabh, the husband of defendant No. 1, who was a goldsmith, in order that he might prepare certain ornaments. Padmanabh did not make the ornaments, and consequently, some three weeks later, the plaintiff obtained the suit promissory note which is signed by Padmanabh and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are said to be his cousins. Subsequently, Padmanabh died and the plaintiff brought the present suit against defendant No. 1, who is Padmanabh's widow, and defendants Nos. 8 and 3 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Honavar.2. The execution of the promissory note was and is admitted, and an issue about consideration was raised in the first Court and it was found that there was consideration, The defendants raised the plea of coercion but that has now been given up. ...
Anna Nana Khot Vs. Gojra Dnyanu Kavale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom333; (1928)30BOMLR867; 114Ind.Cas.390
Patkar, J.1. The properties in suit are Survey Nos. 158, 298, 152 and a house and an open space. Survey No. 158 is watan property and Survey Nos. 298 and 152 aro rayatawa lands. One Rama was the original owner of the property. After his deatli his property was inherited by Hari who died in 1901. Jija, the widow of Hari, remarried and the property went into the possession of Hari's mother Rakhma who, on April 1, 1911, passed a deed of gift with regard to the rayatawa lands in favour of her daughter Bhagu by Exhibit 17. Bhagu died on July 13, 1917, leaving a daughter Gojra, defendant No. 1, who is married to defendant No. 2. On July 11, 1919, Rakhma died and the present suit was filed on April 15, 1924, by the present plaintiffs who are sons of Nana, cousin of Hari, and claim to be the reversioners to the estate of the deceased Hari. The learned Subordinate Judge, with regard to the rayatawa lands and property other than watan property, held that there was a surrender by the widow of the...
Shankar Nana Patil Vs. Jagannath Mathuralal Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom265; (1928)30BOMLR741
Patkar, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover rent of Rs. 182-4-0 on an oral agreement by which the defendants attorned to the plaintiff. The Kabulayats passed by the defendants, Exhibits 16 and 17, are proved by the evidence of the plaintiff and the previous oral tenancy was also proved. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants were estopped from disputing the plaintiff's initial right to let out the land during the continuance of the tenancy as the defendants admittedly came on the land through their deceased father.2. The first point taken in this application is that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Notification in the Bombay Government Gazette for 1911, Part, page 1694, did not give power to the Subordinate Judge by name to entertain suits for recovery of rent, under Clause (8) of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In Akshay Kumar Shaha v. Hira Ram Dosad I.L.R. (1908) Cal. 677, it was h...
Musa Miya Muhamad Shaffi Vs. Kadar Bax Khaj Bax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR766
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by Musa Miya walad Mahamad Shaffi, a minor, and Isa Miya alias Mahamad Ismailkhan walad Mahainad Shaffi, who were defendants Nos. 18 and 19 in the suit, against the judgment and decree dated December 6, 1923, of the High Court of Bombay, which varied the o. decree of the learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit.2. The suit brought on January 6, 1919, by Kadar Bax Sir Lancelot Khaj Bax, who is now dead; his representatives are the first Sanderson respondent in this appeal.3. The plaintiff claimed as one of the heirs under Mahoinedan law of one Abdul Rasul, a Sunni Mahomedan, a three-eighth share of the properties scheduled in the plaint and left by the said Abdul Rasul, who was his brother. He alleged that Abdul Rasul died, leaving him surviving as his heirs a widow, Sahebjan (who was the first defendant, and who is now dead), a daughter, Rahimatbi (who was the second defendant and who is the second respondent in this appeal), and his broth...
HussaIn Bibi Vs. Nur HussaIn Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR849
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and Decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated April 16, 1924, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge dated January 6, 1923.2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863 in respect of a religious institution at Lahore known as the Takia Rasul Shahian.3. Under that section 'any person or persona interested in any mosque, temple or religious establishment or in the performance of the worship or the service thereof or the trust relating thereto may...sue...the trustee, manager or superintendent...for any misfeasance, broach of trust or neglect of duty...and the Civil Court may direct' specific performance, damages, etc., 'and may also direct the removal of such trustee, manager, superintendent or member of the Committee.'4. The case has been fought out in the Courts below on the footing that a wakf existed, of which the appellant Hussain Bibi...
ishram Govinda Patil Vs. Trimbak Ganpat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom264; (1928)30BOMLR675
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff, on October 20, 1913, had an award passed in his favour, under which a certain sum was to be paid by annual instalments in December of each year, and it was provided that if the defendant failed to pay as above, the plaintiff was at liberty to sell the mortgaged property according to law and thus recover the amount found due. He had made an application to have the award filed in Court, but subsequently withdrew it. He then brought a regular suit to enforce the mortgage, but the defendant objected that the mortgage had become merged in the award and the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, on April 10, 1922, he brought the present suit to recover a sum of of Rs. 1,000 due in regard to certain instalments, and he prayed that in default of payment by the defendant it should be recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property, subject to a charge for the instalments, which were still due. The trial Judge held that the cause of action had arisen in the month of Decem...
Supdu Daulatsing Daji Patil Vs. Sakharam Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR537
Fawcett, J.1. The Assistant Judge has fully and carefully considered the point whether the appellant No. 3, who was a minor at the date of the application for execution made in 1916, can avail himself of his minority so as to bring the application of September 8, 1921, within the period of limitation allowed by law. He has followed the view taken in Rati Ram v. Niadar I.L.R. (1919) All 435 and Bapu Tatya v. Bala Ravji I.L.R. (1920) Bom. 446: 22 Bom. L.R. 1383 as opposed to the view taken in Govindram v. Tatia I.L.R.(1895) Bom. 383. Manchand Panachand v. Kesari I.L.R. (1910) Bom. 672: 12 Bom. L.R. 682 and similar decisions. In our opinion the language of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 does make a change in what was held to be the law under the corresponding Section 8 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877. The observation of Scott C.J. in Manchand v. Kesari to the contrary is a decision of a single Judge not binding upon us, whereas the view taken in Bapu Tatya v. Bala Rav...
Emperor Vs. Vithabai Sukha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom336; (1928)30BOMLR613
Madgavkar, J.1. The offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of the girl Hansabai, wife of Laxrnan. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 took Hansabai away from the service of a Parsi, where accused No. 1 and Hansabai were serving, to the house of accused No. 1's sister-in-law, accused No. 2, and after a couple of days accused No. 2 took her to the brothel of accused No. 3, left her there for two or three hours for six or seven nights, and brought her back to her own house regularly, the earnings of Hansabai by prostitution being equally divided by accused Nos. 2 and 3. Hansabai then ran away from accused No. 2 and was found by the police.2. The first point of law raised on behalf of accused No. 3 is that possession under Section 373, Indian Penal code, must be complete and exclusive possession and that possession for two hours or so for four or five nights, as is alleged in this case, in the house of the brothel-keeper accused No. 3, was not possession within the me...
The Master of the British Steamship singleton Abbey. Vs. the Master of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR833
Merrivale, J.1. Well established principles limit the 1928 authority of Courts of Appeal to overrule findings of fact made by tribunals of first instance. A manifestly erroneous conclusion, which a reasonable judgment rejects, is not validated by the fact that it was arrived at after hearing and seeing witnesses. On the other hand, the veracity of witnesses is ordinarily to be finally determined by those before whom they give evidence. The value, of corroborative or discredit proof can best be judged by those who have before the all the persona involved. A conclusion of fact of one tribunal founded upon divers admissible facts of varying importance ought not to be overset because the balance of proof upon consideration of the matter by different minds in a new setting seems to incline against the conclusion originally drawn....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »