Mumbai Court March 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. Bansilal Gangaram Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR646
Fawcett, J.1. The applicant in this case was accused of possessing cocaine and so having committed an offence under Section 43(I)(a) of the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, During the trial the report of a person called the excise analyst, Government Central Distillery, Nasik Road, that one bottle which had been sent to him contained cocaine, and that some other things contained no cocaine, was tendered in evidence and exhibited by the Magistrate. No objection appears to have been raised to this being done, and the Magistrate appears to have considered that the report fell under e, 510, Criminal Procedure Code. It is quite clear, however, that the report does not come under that section; and the Magistrate was presumably misled by the fact that this excise analyst was referred to in the evidence as a chemical analyser. The accused was subsequently convicted of the offence. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the point arose, that the report of the excise analyst was inadmissible in evidence. The S...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom448; (1928)30BOMLR1172; 113Ind.Cas.593
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This income-tax reference arises on assessments for the financial years 1925-26 and 1926-27 of the Bombay Trust Corporation Limited (whom I will call 'the Bombay Company') as agent of the Hongkong Trust Corporation Limited (whom I will call 'the Hongkong Company'). Having regard to Section 3 and the definition of 'previous year' in Section 2(11) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, the profits assessed are alleged profits for the years ending March 31, 1925, and March 31, 1926, respectively.2. The Crown claims that the Bombay Company has a 'business connection' with the Hongkong Company and is accordingly the latter's agent within the meaning of Section 43 of the Act, and consequently be assessed in the name of that agent under Section 42. The Bombay Company disputes the alleged 'business connection' and says that in any event it is necessary, having regard to Section 40 of the Act, for the alleged agent to be in receipt on behalf of the Hongkong Company of a...
Muthiah Chetti Vs. Palaniappa Chetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1353
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated September 1, 1921, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, affirming a decree dated September 19, 1916, of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the appellant as mortgagee for recovery of monies due on his mortgage bond about to be referred to. That bond is dated March 19, 1910.3. Muthiah Chetti and Raman Chetti were undivided brothers; the former was father of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the latter father of respondents Nos. 8 and 4. They carried on a money- lending business at Rangoon. They both died prior to the date of the mortgage in question. After their deaths the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 still formed a joint and undivided Hindu family, T~7 They were, however, all minors, their guardians being Nagamai Achi, mother of the first two respondents, and Sittall or Minakshi Achi, mother of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.4. This mortgage dated March 19, 1910, was executed by t...
In Re: Punjalal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom224; (1928)30BOMLR617
Fawcett, J.1. There are two points that arise on this reference by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. One that may be first disposed of is that referred to in the penultimate paragraph of the letter of the Sessions Judge. The City Magistrate in his order of September 5, 1927, made some remarks to the effect that it was hard upon the husband Punjalal to pay the allowance that he had been ordered to pay under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, in July 1926. But the Magistrate says : 'I cannot sit in judgment over the order passed by my predecessor when no change in circumstances Is established.' The Sessions Judge submits that in this the Magistrate was wrong. He says:-I would submit that, as, under Section 48S of the Code, only a person having sufficient means can be ordered to pay maintenance at all, there was nothing to prevent the Magistrate making a new order, if he found after proper inquiry that the means of the husband were not sufficient to enable him to pay so much.2. If the S...
Moro Kashinath Joshi Vs. Ganesh Hari Bagul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom243; (1928)30BOMLR683
Fawcett, J.1. The applicant's main contention is that as the suit is brought in respect of a disposseasion of plaintiff's tenant by the defendant in March J 926, it should, in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Goma v. Narsingrao I.L.R. (1895) Bom. 260, f.b. have been brought by the tenant so that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to pass an order in favour of the plaintiff, To this it is replied that the Mamlatdar has found that the plaintiff's tenant relinquished his tenancy and gave back the land into the plaintiff's possession in April 1926, and also that the alleged dispossession was within sis months of the suit being brought by the plaintiff on July 23, v. 1926, so that the. plaintiff could bring the suit. The support of this the plaintiff's pleader relies upon Deu Dada Gavli v. Sitaram I.L.R. (1907) Bom. 46,: 9 Bom. L.R. 1179 We do not think that this ruling quite applies to the present case. That was a case whore the plaintiff was suing two tenants to recover possessio...
The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Pandharinath Martand Su ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom341; (1928)30BOMLR893; 113Ind.Cas.148
Patkar, J.1. In this case, respondents Nos. 2 and 8 presented their insolvency petition on March 1, 1923. On February 27, 1923, two days before the presentation of the insolvency petition, they sold their house in Sholapur to respondent No. 1, the firm of Pandharinath Martand Sulakhe of Barsi, for Rs. 15,000. Respondent No. 1 firm sent, on February 6, 1923, Rs. 44,000 to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to purchase hundis. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 sent hundis for Rs. 27,000. Respondent No. 1 made several demands for the balance out of the money sent to the insolvents for a specific purpose. The firm was also a creditor for the balance of Rs. 10,000 due to the firm's shop in Bombay. At the end of February, Dattatraya, one of the owners and manager of respondent No. 1 firm, came to Sholapur and threatened respondents Nos. 2 and 3 with criminal prosecution. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 then sold the house to respondent No. 1 firm for Rs. 15,000 as stated above on February 27, 1923. After the inso...
Kaikhushru M. Talyarkhan Vs. Bai Gulab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR406
Crump, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the Official Assignee, and he sues as the assignee of the estate and effects of one Virji Madhavji who was adjudicated an insolvent on July 2, 1925. The first defendant is the widow and executrix of one Tulsidas Mohanji, and defendants Nos. 2 to 17 are the President and members of the Board of Directors of the Native Share and Stock Brokers Association. Defendants Nos. 18 to 22 are members of the Defaulter Committee of the said Association. The suit arises out of certain transactions between Virji and Tulsidas, who were both certified brokers of the said Association. The nature of those dealings is as follows :-Virji sold to Tulsidas seventy-five shares of the Century Mill for June delivery. He then bought from Tulsidas twelve shares of the same Mill for the same delivery and he also bought five shares of the Fazul Mill for July delivery. Upon these transactions three sums are alleged to have become due from Tulsidas to Virji. As regards the pu...
Govinddas Rajaramdas Gujar Vs. Ganpatdas Narottamdas Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom365; (1928)30BOMLR912
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts, proceeded:] The first question which arises in this case is whether the present suit is barred by res judicata or by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The house was not included in the plaint in the previous suit. It was a subsequent acquisition by defendant No. 1 on behalf of the family, and in the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge partition could not have been and was not in fact ordered with regard to the plaint house. It is clear, therefore), that the suit is not barred by res judicata.2. The next question is whether it is barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Reliance is placed on behalf of the defendants on the order of the commissioner approved by the First Class Subordinate Judge on August 11, 1910. If the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge, dated August 11, 1910, be construed as a decree for partition of the house, the present suit would be barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code...
In Re: Virbhan Bhagaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom290; (1928)30BOMLR642
Fawcett, J.1. It is admitted in this case that accused No. 1, who is one of the opponents in this application, did get the screen in front of the lattice knocked down and broken. The complaint alleges that both of the accused were concerned in that act. The Magistrate's view that this is a case merely for a civil Court can, at any rate, be said to be opposed to the provisions of Section 36 of the Indian Easements Act, as pointed out in Emperor v. Zipru I.L.R (1927) Bom. 487: 29 Bom. L.R. 484. We do not want in any way to prejudice the trial of this case. But we have come to the conclusion after hearing full arguments that in regard to the offence of mischief under Sections 426 and 114, Indian Penal Code, the summary dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate is on the merits unjustified, and that the complaint, so far as it relates to those sections, should be accepted by the Magistrate and process issued against both the two accused.2. We see no sufficient reason to interfere with t...
Emperor Vs. Narayan Keshav Devasthali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR651
Fawcett, J.1. Three points have been raised in this application. The first is that the accused were not properly examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, This objection was based upon a certified copy of the roznama in the case. But admittedly the record now shows that there was an examination of the accused on August 9, 1927, after the further prosecution evidence had been taken, so that that objection no longer survives.2. The second point is that the appellate Court directed additional evidence to be taken under Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, in the presence of the accused, and that the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, were not observed in respect of that additional evidence. In our opinion, Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, does not apply to evidence taken under Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, In itself, Section 34.2 applies only to a case of an original trial. If it is to apply to any other case, then t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »