Mumbai Court April 1928 Judgments
Sakalaguna Nayudu Vs. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1379
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against a decree dated March 5, 1925, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which reversed a decree dated June 26, 1922, of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff in order to obtain a direction by the Court that the defendants should execute a conveyance of the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff and other consequent reliefs.3. The learned Subordinate judge dismissed the suit with costs: the High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal with costs and ordered the defendants to execute the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff as prayed, and gave other necessary directions in 1928 respect thereof.4. The material facts of this case are as follows :-The defendants are the sons of one Venkatapathi Naidu. By a deed dated January 27, 1891, Venkat Subrahmanya Ayyar, on behalf of himself and as guardian of his minor son Krishnasami Ayyar, sold the village of Siyatti to the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Guran Ditta Vs. T. Ram Ditta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1384
Parmoor, J.1. This is an appeal, by special leave, from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, affirming a decree of the Divisional Judge at Peshawar.2. The respondent is the eldest son of Teku Ram, who died on May 20, 1920. The appellant, Guran Ditta, is a son, and the appellant, Musammat Gujri, is the widow of the said Teku Ram. on May 17, 1919, opened a deposit account for '28 Rs. 1,00,000 with the Peshawar Branch of the Alliance Bank of Simla, in the name of himself and his wife, 'payable to either for survivor.' The receipt of the Bank was dated May 24, in the following terms : 'Received from L. Teku Ram, house proprietor, and his wife, Bibi Gujri, payable to either or survivor, rupees one lak only, as a deposit bearing interest at 5 1/2 per cent, per annum, requiting twelve mouths' notice of withdrawal and subject to the general rules of the Bank with respect to such deposit.' A notice of withdrawal was given when the account was o...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Yemaji Vs. Shripat Tatya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR889
Madgavkar, J.1. The question raised in this application is on the construction of the newly added explanation to Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bom. Act II of 1906).2. The lands originally belonged to one Magan. He passed a conveyance in favour of Tatya the father of the opponent No. 1 Shripat, The purchaser sued both Magan and his son Sandu for possession on the ground that, the entire survey number had passed to him. He succeeded in the trial Court. Rut in appeal the appellate Court held that Sandy's share had not been transferred, and granted opponent No. 1 a declaration that ho had a half share and was only entitled to joint possession. The opponent No. 1 took no steps to execute the decree or to be placed in joint possession. On May 15, 1927, Sandu placed the applicants plaintiffs in possession under a lease for eleven months as tenants. On June 13, 1927, the opponent No. 1 dispossessed them. The applicants brought the present suit under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act for be...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavlal Mohanlal Jhaveri Vs. Bai Lakshmi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR950
Mirza, J.1. We have heard full arguments in this matter but the point seems to us to be a simple one, and depends upon the interpretation we are to put upon the writing sent to the arbitrators by the learned Judge. The application made by the plaintiffs to the arbitrators was that certain suits having been sent to the arbitrators and fixed by them for taking evidence that day the applicants were present under protest and wished that the arbitrators would note that fact. On that application the arbitrators made the endorsement 'As the plaintiff gives the application as stated above, we do not think-it proper that we should decide these matters under these circumstances. Therefore we return the proceedings.' On receipt of the papers and proceedings the learned Judge returned them with a note as follows:-The arbitrators are requested to finish the work. The protest does not matter. It is unjustified. The Court has confidence in the arbitrators. The Arbitrators should not retire for that w...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lakshman Naran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom348; (1928)30BOMLR952
Fawcett, J.1. We agree with the District Magistrate that this is a case in which the Second Class Magistrate, Dohad, should have availed himself of his power under Section 8 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897, of sending the boy Lakshman Naran to a Reformatory instead of his undergoing the sentence of one month's simple imprisonment and a further one month in default of payment of fine, which was inflicted for his offence under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. The boy was not less than ten years or more than fifteen, his age being thirteen, and there was a previous conviction of theft under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, against him. Therefore, it was a case where he could properly be sent to a Reformatory under the conditions mentioned in Criminal Circular No. 89 at page 56 of the High Court Criminal Circulars. We accept the District Magistrate's recommendation, and direct, in the exercise of our powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Reformatory Schools Act, that the accu...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bai Manek; in Re: Chimanlal Somchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom418; (1928)30BOMLR958
Fawcett. J.1. In this case the petitioner was willing to provide a separate residence for his wife in the neighbourhood of his own house. That offer was, however, refused by the wife, and she took proceedings for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code against him. The Magistrate has held that, as the husband refused to keep his wife in his own house, he was neglecting to maintain her properly and that the wife ought to be granted a maintenance allowance under Section 488. The petitioner contends that this is erroneous and that that offer is one that prevents the maintenance allowance being granted. In support of this reliance has been placed on In re Gulabdas Bhaidas I.L.R (1891) Bom. 269. In that case it is ruled that there is no authority for the proposition that the words 'as his wife' should be read in after the words 'maintain his wife 'in Sub-section (1) of Section 488. It is pointed out, on the other hand, by Mr. Divatia that in that case the offer was to k...
Tag this Judgment!In Re Vithaldas Bhurabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom347; (1928)30BOMLR957
Fawcett, J.1. The only legal point taken in this application is that the Magistrate ought to have examined the petitioner under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that his omission to do so has vitiated his proceedings.2. Mr. Shah for the petitioner has contended that the word 'accused' in Section 342 is not confined to the case of a person accused of an offence and has referred us to various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, where such a construction might give rise to inconvenience. Even assuming that the word 'accused' is sometimes used in the Code in a wider sense than a person accused of an offence, still it seems to me perfectly clear that Section 342 does not apply to a case under Section 488 of the Code. The latter part 01 Sub-section (1) of Section 342 speaks of the accused being questioned generally in the case 'after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.' Those words are appropriate to the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Government Pleader Vs. Dattatraya Narayan Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom385; (1928)30BOMLR1011; 114Ind.Cas.259
Fawcett, J.1. The opponent in this application, Mr. D.N. Deshpande, is a High Court pleader. He was enrolled as such on or about January 31, 1917, and has since been practising in the local subordinate Courts in Bombay. He was adjudicated an insolvent on March 16, 1925. According to his own statement in the application that he made to the Chief Justice on April 28, 1926, he had speculated in shares of different joint stock companies and on account of a crisis in the local stock exchange had incurred heavy losses to the extent of Rs. 40,000, The Official Assignee, in his report Exhibit B, says that the statement filed by him shows liabilities to the extent of Rs. 50,000 as loss in speculation, but that as the insolvent has not filed his schedule his actual liabilities cannot be definitely ascertained. On April 23, 1926, he applied to the Chief Justice, mentioning his adjudication and asking that during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings and after his discharge he might be grante...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vithaldas Bhurabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.475
Fawcett, J.1. The only legal point taken in this application is that the Magistrate ought to have examined the petitioner under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that his omission to do so has vitiated his proceedings.2. Mr. Shah for the petitioner has contended that the word 'accused.' in Section 342 is not confined to the case of a person accused of an offence and has referred us to various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, where such a construction might give rise to inconvenience. Even assuming that the word 'accused' is sometimes used in the Code in a wider sense than a person accused of an offence, still it seems to me perfectly clear that Section 312 does not apply to a case under Section 488 of the Code. The latter part of Sub-section (1) of Section 342 speaks of the accused being questioned generally in the case 'after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.' Those words are appropriate to the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Yemaji and ors. Vs. Shripat Tatya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Bom114
Madgavkar, J.1. The question raised in this application is on the construction of the newly added explanation to S. 5, Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bom. Act 2 of 1906).2. The lands originally belonged to one Magan. He passed a conveyance in favour of Tatya, the father of opponent 1, Shripat. The purchaser sued both Magan and his son Sandu for possession on the ground that the entire survey number had passed to him. He succeeded in the trial Court. But in appeal the appellate Court held that Sandu's share had not been transferred, and granted opponent 1 a declaration that he had a half-share and was only entitled to joint possession. Opponent 1 took no steps to execute the decree or to be placed in joint possession. On 15th May 1927, Sandu placed the applicants-plaintiffs in possession under a lease for 11 months as tenants. On 13th June 1927, opponent I dispossessed them. The applicants brought the present suit under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act for being reinstated in possession and succeede...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »