Mumbai Court July 1929 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. Genu Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1134
Patkar, J.1. In this case the three accused were tried on a charge under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced each to pay a 6ne of Ra. 25 by the Special Magistrate, First Class, Poona. The learned Sessions Judge of Poona has made a reference to this Court recommending that the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate should be quashed as the trial was vitiated by failure to examine the applicants under Section 842 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It appears that the witness, Exhibit 1, was examined on October 25, and three other witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, were examined on November 1, 1928. On that day the learned Magistrate asked the accused whether they beat the complainant on Sunday September 80, 1928, at 11 A.M. The accused replied in the negative. After the statements of the accused were taken a charge under Section 823 was framed against the accused and they were asked whether they pleaded guilty to the charge. The ...
Khairunnissa Vs. Bashir Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.59
Patkar, J.1. In this case the complainant filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance against her husband. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the stay of the respondent of about eight days in Bombay with the applicant could not be said to constitute 'residence' within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his view he relied on the case of Ramdie v. Jhunni Lal 95 I.C. 596 : 27 C.L.J. 820 : 3 C.W.N. 231 : A.I.R. 1926 Oudh 268 : 13 O.L.J. 597, where it was held that the words 'last resided' in Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not contemplate a mere casual residence in a place for a temporary purpose and that where the husband is employed as a carpenter in the Railway workshops in Lahore and has been residing there continuously for eleven years, a temporary sojourn to Lucknow by him with his wife would no...
Genu Gopal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.424
Patkar, J.1. In this case the three accused were tried on a charge under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 25 by the Special Magistrate, First Class, Poona. The learned Sessions Judge of Poona has made a reference to this Court recommending that the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate should be quashed as the trial was vitiated by failure to examine the applicants under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It appears that the witness, Ex. 1, was examined on October 25, and three other witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, Exs. 2, 3 and 4, were examined on November 1, 1928, On that day the learned Magistrate asked the accused whether they beat the complainant on Sunday September 30,1928, at 11 a. m. The accused replied in the negative. After the statements of the accused were taken a charge under Section 323 was formed against the accused and they were asked whether they pleaded guilty to the charge. The accused...
Ramchandra Anant Desai Vs. Bhagwant Gopal Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1115
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit on a ruzu-khata against Anant, father of the defendants-appellants, minors, and his brother Hari, the latter being impleaded on the v. ground that he was a member of a joint Hindu family along with Anant. Subsequently, on Hari' s special oath, the claim against Hari was given up and a decree was passed against Anant alone. After the decree the respondent applied for execution by attachment and sale of certain property, and put in an application that in the sale proclamation not only the right, title and interest of Anant should be included as being put up for sale, but also the interest of Anant's two minor sons, the appellants Ramchandra and Dattatraya. Notice was issued to the minors and their grandfather appointed guardian ad litem. After framing issues and recording evidence, the executing Court held that the debt in dispute was not immoral as the appellants alleged, and granted the application of the decree-holder respondent,...
Galabbhai Lallubhai Vs. Kika Jivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1111
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant obtained a decree against one Pema Parbhu on September 21, 1920. The plaintiff applied in execution on January 16, 1923, and obtained an order of attachment with notice under Order XXI, Rule 54, returnable on June 29. On June 19, 1923, the judgment-debtor sold the property to the defend respondent Kika, and the actual prohibition upon the judgment-debtor and proclamation were effected on June 22, 1923. The question in this appeal is whether the sale to the respondent by the judgment-debtor on June 19, 1928, after the order of attachment but before the actual prohibition and proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 54, is voidable at the option of the appellant under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure; secondly, if not, whether it can be set aside under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Both the lower Courts held that the respondent had been negotiating for the purchase of the land some time prior to the application for execution, and...
Galabhai Lallubhai Vs. Kika Jivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.510
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant obtained a decree against one Pema Parbhu on September 21, 1920. The plaintiff applied in execution on January 16, 1923, and obtained an order of attachment with notice under Order XXI, Rule 54, returnable on June 29. On June 19, 1923, the judgment-debtor sold the property to the defendant-respondent Kika, and the actual prohibition upon the judgment debtor and proclamation were effected on June 22, 1923. The question in this appeal is whether the sale to the respondent by the judgment debtor on June 19, 1923, after the order of attachment but before the actual prohibition and proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 54, is voidable at the option of the appellant under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure; if not, whether it can be set aside under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Both the lower Courts held that the respondent had been negotiating for the purchase of the land some time prior to the application for execution, and had pa...
Fatechand Rampratap Marwadi Vs. Jitmal Rupchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1105
Madgavkar, J.1. The questions in this appeal are, jurisdiction and limitation.2. The respondents obtained a decree for money in the Court of Tasgaon in the Satara district on October 29, 1921, and had it transferred for execution to the Court of the Native State of Kolhapur. They were unable to obtain satisfaction there, and on December 8, 1928, they applied to have the execution there stopped and the decree to be returned to the Tasgaon Court. As the proceedings in execution were infructuous in Taegaon, they had execution transferred from Tasgaon to Nasik on March 9, 1924, and withdrew it for non-satisfaction of March 18, 1924. The darkhast they filed in the Tasgaon Court on January 25, 1924, had been dismissed similarly on their own application. In 1928 the decree-holder applied to the Tasgaon Court again to transfer the execution proceedings to the Court of Kolhapur. It was thus transferred accordingly on February 18, 1925. On April 6, 1926, the decree-holder asked the Tasgaon Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›