Mumbai Court May 1928 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Bhikaji Moharir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR967
Mirza, J.1. The applicant was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, E.D. Poona, under Sections 842, 384 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment for his conviction under Section 342, three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 384, and six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, in default one month's further rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420. The three sentences were to run consecutively. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Poona, maintained the convictions under Sections 342 and 384, and was of opinion that the conviction under Section 420 was not correct. He confirmed the sentence of three months under Section 342, and passed a sentence of nine months under Section 384. It was contended before the Sessions Judge that by passing a sentence of nine months under Section 384 he was enhancing the original sentence which was for three months only. The learned Judge was of opinion that the offences under ...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshir H. Mama Vs. Flora Sassoon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1242
Blanesburgh, J.1. This suit, commenced on January 10, 1920, in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, was, in its inception, a simple action by a purchaser for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain valuable hereditaments on Malabar Hill in Bombay with claims for damages additional or alternative all in terms of Section 19 of the Specific Belief Act, 187 7. The defences to the suit wore that there never had been any concluded contract for the sale of the property : if there had been such a contract it had been entered into on behalf of the defendant by an agent with no authority to bind her to its terms. There is in the defendant's written statement no suggestion that the plaintiff's right was not a right to specific relief, if any existent contract binding upon the defendant was established. And the case, indeed, was one in which upon proof by the plaintiff of the facts alleged by him, he became entitled as of right under Section 12(o) of the Act to the specif...
Tag this Judgment!Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani Vs. the Tata Industrial Bank, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1115
Blanesburgh, J.1. The Tata Industrial Bank, Limited, was in the year 1917 incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1918, for the purpose of carrying on the business of banking in all its branches. It had a nominal capital of twelve crores of rupees, divided into 1,600,000 shares of 75 rupees each. In July, 1923, 1,000,893 of its shares were in issue, and on each of them the sum of Us. 22-8 had been paid up. There was therefore an uncalled liability of Rs. 52-8 on every issued share, In July, 1923, the first appellant was the holder of one hundred of these 1,000,893 shares, and the second appellant was the holder of live. The relatively trifling amount of these holdings constitutes a circumstance of relevance at many stages of this case.2. It seems to be accepted on all hands that for some years prior to July, 1923, the Tata Bank had been losing ground. It is in evidence that its deposits had in two and a half years sunk from twelve crores to three and a half crorers. Its industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Jehangir Pestonji Wadia Vs. Framji Rustomji Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR962
Mirza, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of the accused in certain criminal proceedings now pending against him in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, for stay of those proceedings pending the disposal of 0.0.C.J. Suit No. 2527 of 1927 in which the complainant is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant in respect of the subject-matter of the alleged offence.2. Two grounds have been urged on behalf of the applicant. The first ground is that the present proceeding before the Magistrate is not maintainable by reason of a compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of it. On March 4, 1927, the complainant had filed a complaint in the Presidency Magistrate's Court against the accused under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, in respect of two letters which were alleged to be defamatory. While those proceedings were pending, the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused in respect of other similar letters. After the filing of the presen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›