Mumbai Court June 1928 Judgments
Jankibai Keshav Bandekar Vs. Ramchandra Jairam Badale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom475; (1928)30BOMLR1148; 113Ind.Cas.46
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. We concur with the findings of both the Courts that the suit does not fall within the provisions of Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The plaintiffs sold their equity of redemption, and, in our opinion, the result is that they are not 'agriculturists whose property is mortgaged 'within the meaning of Section 15D. Such mortgaged property as they did have has been sold and so it is no longer their property. It is argued that the suit is maintainable under the provisions of Section 16 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. which says: 'Any agriculturist may sue for an account of money lent or advanced to or paid for him by a creditor, or due by him to the creditor as the price of goods sold, or on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money,..' Mr. Parulekar refers to the provisions in the mortgage bond under which the mortgagors became liable to pay the mortgage debt personally or from their joint property, and says th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dwarkadas Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1270
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. The only point of law that has been taken before us by Mr. Coyajee for the applicant is that the second count of the charge against the applicant in respect of a gross sum that was alleged to be dishonestly misappropriated does not properly fall within the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That question was also taken in the appeal to the Sessions Judge, who has given reasons for considering it to be of no substance. I agree in this opinion. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines criminal breach of trust, is in very wide language, viz., 'whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property...commits 'criminal breach of trust.' The words 'in any manner' are noticeable, and ill. (e) is to the point, A revenue-officer is described as entrusted with public money, and under a duty to pay it into a Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Moreshwar Janardan Gogate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1255
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the accused, a land-holder in the village of Jainsande, was, according to the prosecution case, in arrears to the extent of lis. 19-S-9 on account of land revenue for the year 1926-1927. On his failure to pay the same though demand was made several times, the Mamlatdar ordered the recovery of the arrears plus one-fourth line under Section 148 of the Land Revenue Code by attachment of the accused's moveable property. The complainant Balkrishna Ganesh Parnlekar, the Talathi, went to the accused's house on June 80, 1927, for recovery of the arrears and fine, but the accused refused to pay the arrears on the ground that the demand was not legal. The complainant attached a drinking vessel of copper which was forcibly taken away by the accused from the peon's hand. The accused was, therefore, charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code with causing obstruction to public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The accused was convicted and sentenced...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Haridas Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.399
Charles Fawcett, Acting, C.J.1. The only point of law that has been taken before us by Mr. Coyajee for the applicant is that the second count of the charge against the applicant in respect of a gross sum that was alleged to be dishonestly misappropriated does not properly fall within the provisions of sub Section (2) of Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That question was also taken in the appeal to the Sessions Judge, who has given reasons for considering it to be of no substance. I agree in this opinion. Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines criminal breach of trust, is in very wide language, viz., 'whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property...commits 'criminal breach of trust.' The words 'in any manner' are noticeable, and ill. (e) is to the point. A Revenue Officer is described as entrusted with public money, and under a duty to pay it into a Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Moreshwar Janardan Gogate Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.854
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the accused, a land-holder in the village of Jamsande, was, according to the prosecution case, in arrears to the extent of Rs. 19-8-9 on account of land revenue for the year 1926-1927. On his failure to pay the same though demand was made several times, the mamlatdar ordered the recovery of the arrears plus one-fourth fine under Section 148 of the Land Revenue Code by attachment of the accused's moveable property. The complainant Balkrishna Ganesh Parulekar, the Talathi, went to the accused's house on June 30, 1927, for recovery of the arrears and fine, but the accused refused to pay the arrears on the ground that the demand was not legal. The complainant attached a drinking vessel of copper which was forcibly taken away by the accused from the peon's hand. The accused was, therefore, charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code with causing obstruction to a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The accused was convicted and sentenced...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay Municipality Vs. Yenkanna Ellsppa Balaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom413; (1928)30BOMLR1128; 113Ind.Cas.506
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused, on February 11, 1927, submitted plans to the Municipal Commissioner to erect a structure designed to be let as small shops on the side of the compound of his building along Balaram street. The plans were approved by the Municipality and the structure was erected in compliance with the Municipal requirements. The structure consists of blocks abutting on Balaram street. The shops are let to tenants on monthly rental varying from Rs. 20 to Rs. 35. There is no inter-communication between the shops. Each tenant is independent of the other. The blocks were divided into sixteen shops. One tenant sold flowers, another sold toys and the rest of the tenants sold fruits of various kinds. The shops looked like stalls or booths. The customers purchased the goods standing on the pavement of the road and had no right to enter the shops. The fruits left unsold were kept in the shop overnight and the shutters were padlocked.2. The accused was charged under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Tangeva Venkappa Vs. Govindappa Ayappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom495; (1928)30BOMLR1145
Mirza, J.1. This is a second appeal from a judgment of the lower appellate Court, which reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, The appellant's claim m based upon her being the preferential reversioner in respect of a property which was held by her mother, enjoying a widow's estate therein. The other reversioner is her sister, defendant No 5. It is conceded that the plaintiff, being the poorer of the two sisters, is the preferential reversioner. The property, 1928 the subject-matter of the claim in the suit, was sold by the plaintiff's mother about thirty years ago. The plaintiff was not a party t0 the sale-deed. The sale-deed recited that the sale was for family purposes. Defendant No. 1 is the alienee of the property. His case in the lower Courts was that the sale had taken place for a family necessity, viz., to obtain a divorce for the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was a consenting party to the sale and bad benefitted by it. The first Court hel...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlal Gulabchand Vs. Taniram Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom444; (1928)30BOMLR1136; 113Ind.Cas.353
Mirza, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff in this case sued to recover a certain sum on a. simple mortgage bond dated December 11, 1917. The mortgage bond is executed by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and Section The defendants Nos. 1 to 8 are sued as members of a joint undivided family, defendants Nob, 1 to 6 being the sons of one Sadashiv, defendant No. 7 as grandson of one Lotan, who was a brother of Sadashiv, and defendant No. 8 a son of another brother of Sadashiv, one Ananda. The appellant's case was that defendants Nos. 1 to 8 were jointly interested in a family shop carried on in the name of Sadashiv Narayan Shimpe. Defendants Nos. 9 and 10 are auction purchasers of the two survey numbers, the subject-matter of the mortgage bond, being purchasers at an auction sale held in execution of a certain decree. The learned Judge held that the mortgage bond was not binding on defendants Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8, defendant No. 5 being dead. The learned Judge also held that the claim of the plaintiff which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahadu Raghavji Thakkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1086
Patkar, J.1. In this case, two points have been urged on behalf of the accused. The first point is that the learned Magistrate has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as he failed to examine the accused before they entered upon their defence, and that the accused was examined after two of the defence witnesses were examined by the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in his report says that 'the entries in the proceedings sheet of the statements of the accused after those of the defence witnesses are a clerical error which is regretted,'2. The charge in this case was framed on November 5, and the accused were examined cm that day. Three witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were further examined and cross-examined on November 12 and two witnesses on behalf of the accused were examined on that day. According to the report of the Magistrate, the uccuued were examined after the prosecution witnesses were further examined, cross-exami...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Maratha Railway Vs. Jumakhram Parbhudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom504; (1928)30BOMLR1104; 118Ind.Cas.241
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit against the Madras and Southern Maratha Railway Co. to recover a sum of Rs. 180-6-0 as damages in respect of five tins of ghee which were consigned to the defendant company at Sangli for conveyance to the plaintiff and which were wholly lost during transit. The goods were sent under a risk note inform (H), which has been amended so that in certain cases it is provided that the Railway Administration 'shall be bound to disclose to the consignor how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control and, if necessary, to give evidence thereof before the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct, but, if misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence, the burden of proving such misconduct shall lie upon the consignor.' An issue was raised accordingly whether the plaintiff proves loss arising from misconduct of Railway serv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »