Mumbai Court January 1930 Judgments
Girdharlal Mansukhbhai Gandhi Vs. Kapadvanj Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom317; (1930)32BOMLR610
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for review of our judgment summarily dismissing the applicant's appeal herein under the Letters Patent. The applicant was the original plaintiff in the suit and had brought the suit against the respondents claiming certain rights over a passage or lane which he alleged was a public street. The trial Court held against his contentions and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the applicant. From this decision of the appellate Court the respondents preferred a second appeal to this Court. That appeal was heard by Mr. Justice Madgavkar who reversed the judgment of the lower appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. The applicant obtained leave from Mr. Justice Madgavkar to prefer an appeal to this Court under the Letters Patent. On the appeal coming on before us for admission, after we had heard the learned pleader for the applicant we summarily dismissed the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Shankaebhai Dajibhai Vs. Bai Shiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom545; (1930)32BOMLR1013
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a curious and difficult suit. It relates to the property of one Narsi, who died on May 20, 1921, without issue, leaving his widow Bai Shiv, and the plaintiffs Shankar, Jadav and Mohan as the next reversioners. These plaintiffs as the next reversioners have brought the present suit for a declaration that two sale-deeds of October 13, 1915, and April 5, 1922, are void and invalid against the plaintiffs and for the appointment of a receiver to conduct the management of the property of the deceased Narsi Desai during the life-time of defendant No. 1, and for further and other reliefs.2. These two deeds; the one executed in the life-time of Narsi and the other after his death, concern defendant No. 2 Vithal Gordhan, who or whose predecessor-in-title were the mortgagees under two deeds, Exhibits 18 and 19, of June 12, 1880, and March 27, 1886, for Rs. 1,999 and Rs. 2,399 and interest.3. The first deed, viz., Exhibit 20, of October 13, 1915, is in itself a...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmukh Basapa Dhamanji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom163; 125Ind.Cas.710
Boormfield, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum recommending that an order passed by the District Magistrate of Belgaum, dismissing an appeal, should be set aside on the ground that the order is not in accordance with Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It appears that one Shanmukh and five other persona have been convicted by the Bench Court of Belgaum of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. They appealed and the District Magistrate issued notice and heard both parties. Having done so he passed the following order:The lower Court's order contains a full statement of facts and there is nothing for me to describe. The lower Court's appreciation of evidence in the case appears to me to be correct. The appellants' Pleaders' arguments were not convincing against the appellants' guilt.I do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere in the lower Court's judgment. Appeal dismissed.3. It is manifest and is not disputed that a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dinkar Nhanu Mangaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR344
Broomfield, J.1. The accused, on whose behalf this revision application has been presented, was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Vengurla, for an offence under Section 43 (1) (a) of the Abkari Act, the conviction being based on evidence to the effect that a bottle containing Kaju liquor was found in a room of his house and two other bottles also containing some liquor were found buried in a heap of ashes, under the roof of his Padvi. The bottle of liquor alleged to have been found in the house contained one and a half drams and the two bottles found in the ash heap outside contained six drams and four drams respectively. The accused appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed.2. The only contention put forward in this revision application, which, in our opinion, has any substance is that the search of the accused's house was not carried out in the manner prescribed by Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is provided there that before making a search,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkataraman Rama Hedge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.718
Broomfield, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision application are as follows. The First Glass Magistrate of Honavar took proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of a dispute which was found to be likely to cause a breach of the peace relating to two fields Survery Nos. 56 and 57 in the village of Kalkod. The dispute was between three brothers and the question in dispute was whether the three brothers were jointly entitled to these two fields or whether there had been a partition in virtue of which the two fields had fallen to the share of Venkatraman, the elder brother. Besides these two survey numbers there were a number of lands in other villages belonging to the family, and as there was reason to believe that there might be a dispute leading to a breach of the peace in respect of those other lands also, proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were taken as regards those lands in the Court of the Magistrate, First Glass, Sirsi. Th...
Tag this Judgment!The Adjai Coal Company Limited Vs. Panna Lal Ghosh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR654
Thankerton, J.1. In this action, which was instituted on September 22, 1919, the plaintiffs, who are appellants in the leading appeal, sue in respect of a trespass into their coal mine by the principal defendants, who carry on business under the name of the Nandi Coal Association, the lessees of an adjacent mine, and who are respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in the leading appeal. 2. The relief claimed in the action was (1) an enquiry as to the amount of coal cut and taken away by the defendants and damages in respect thereof, (2) the cost of constructing an artificial harrier necessitated by the trespass, and (3) an injunction against further trespass.3. The original defendant No. 1 having died, the present defendant and respondent No. 1 was brought on the record, and on December 8, 1921, filed an additional written statement of defence. Prior to this the issues had been adjusted and they were not subsequently amended. In view of a point raised in the additional statement, Andrew Yule & Company...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mangu Vs. Bharatkhand Cotton Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1930
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.183
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad and dismissing with costs a suit brought by the appellants against the respondent company. There has been much litigation between the parties and others which is relevant to the issues that arise in these suits. The course of the litigation has been carefully and adequately set forth in the judgment appealed from of the present Chief Justice of Bombay, who has appended to his judgment a valuable table of the relevant dates and decrees. The facts have also been fully set out in the judgments below. In the view taken by their Lordships it becomes unnecessary to discuss many of the matters that were in contest in the Courts below and before the Board, and their Lordships will proceed to state only so much of the facts as is essential to explain the reason for their decision. The respondent company, the Bharatkhand Cotton Mills Company, Limited, was...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahadev Govind Nagarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom176
Mirza, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate, Poona, forwarding a report made to him by the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, together with the record and proceedings in two cases, and recommending that the sentence passed by the President and Magistrate, First Class, Poona Bench, Section III, in the second one of these cases being Criminal Case No. 430 of 1929 may be cancelled and some other lawful sentence as this Court may deem fit be substituted therefor.2. It appears that the accused had been previously convicted by the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, on September 4, 1929, in the first one of these cases of an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and released on probation of good conduct under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code on his entering into a bond for Rs. 100 for one year. On December 7, 1929, the accused was convicted by the Bench Magistrate, Poona, in the second one of these cases of an offence under Section 403 of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom367; (1930)32BOMLR604
Patkar, J.1. The plaintiff's father in this case gave notice to the Secretary of State for India in Council on August 17, 1925. The plaintiff's father died on September 17, 1925, and the present suit was brought on December 23, 1925. After the institution of the suit the plaintiff gave notice on December 28, 1925. The notice given by the plaintiff after the institution of the suit is useless.2. The only question in this appeal is whether the notice given by the plaintiff's father on August 17, 1925, is a valid notice under a 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 80, ' no suit shall be instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Council,...until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Secretary of State in Council delivered to, or left at the office of, a Secretary to the Local Government or the Collector of the District,...stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Ganpat Agarwale Vs. the Cantonment Magistrate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR606
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Poona on an application under Section 88 of the Indian Lunacy Act for an order against the father-in-law of a female lunatic to pay for her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5-4-0 a day. The lunatic was admitted in the hospital on November 20, 1926, and discharged on April 8, 1927, under Section 33 of the Lunacy Act.2. The question is, whether the appellant is a person legally bound to maintain such lunatic, and whether he has means to maintain her. There is no doubt that a daughter-in-law is a member of the joint Hindu family of which the appellant is the manager. According to the ruling in Chanvirgouda v. District Magistrate, Dharwar (1926) 29 Bom. L.R. 52 the father in a joint Hindu family, liable as manager to maintain his son as a member of the family, is a person legally bound to maintain his lunatic adult son, and can be called upon to pay the cost of maintenance of such son, under Section 88 of the I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »