Mumbai Court January 1930 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. Babaji Manaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom159; (1930)32BOMLR350
Broomfield, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum reporting for the orders of this Court a case in which one Babaji Manaji Patil has been convicted of an offence under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to a day's simple imprisonment and a line of Rs. 40.2. The weapon in respect of which the accused was convicted was a Jambia, a kind of dagger, which the Sub inspector of Police found in his house when searching the house for stolen goods. The possession of such a weapon is not an offence under the Indian Arms Act unless Section 15, which makes the possession of arms of any description without a license an offence, is applicable to the District of Belgaum. It is clear from Schedule II to the Indian Arms Act 1878, as amended up to date, that throughout British India, with the exception of the Punjab, Burma and the Delhi Province, all arms except those coming under the general classification of fire-arms are excluded from the operation of all proh...
Emperor Vs. Ganpat Krishnaji Parit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom167; (1930)32BOMLR351
Broomfield, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate, Kolaba, in a case in which one Ganpat Krishnaji has been convicted of an ofience under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and has been bound over for six months under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts are that the complainant owed a small sum of money to the accused, and the accused, in order to put pressure on him to pay the debt, drove off two bullocks belonging to the complainant, which were grazing, and tied them up in the verandah of his house. The accused pleaded guilty, but the District Magistrate is of opinion that on the facts found the conviction of the offence of theft is illegal, and he recommends that it should be quashed. In our opinion the District Magistrate is mistaken in his view of the law. It has been held in Queen-Empress v. Agha Muhammad Yusuf ILR (1895) All. 88 and in Queen-Empress v. Sri Churn Chungo ILR (1895) Cal. 1017 the latter a Full Bench ruling, that-A creditor b...
Sheiklal Shaikh Sharif Vs. Ahmedkhan Sharifkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom366; (1930)32BOMLR624
Broomfield, J.1.This is an application for a certificate that Second Appeal No. 708 of 1929 is a fit one for appeal under the Letters Patent. 2. Second Appeal No. 708 of 1929 was summarily dismissed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Allison on October 4, 1929. No certificate was asked for at the time and when the application for a certificate ultimately came to be put up for orders Mr. Justice Allison had ceased to be a Judge.3. Section 15 of the Letters Patent gives a limited right of appeal in the case of second appeals disposed of by a single Judge ' whore the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal,' In the present case for the reasons stated there is no declaration of the Judge who passed the judgment that the case was a fit one for appeal. There is a decision of a Full Bench of the High Court of Rangoon, Ma Than v. Maung Ba Gyaw ILR (1925) Ran. 546, to the effect that in such circumstances no appeal lies. Under the orders of the Honourable the Chi...
Emperor Vs. Ganesh Ramchandra Rajwade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR337
Mirza, J. 1. This is an application for revision of a conviction of the applicant under Section 16 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, VIII of 1914. The applicant is the owner of a Ford bus which is licensed to ply for hire. He holds a general license under Section 6 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act which entitles him to drive motor cars generally all over British India. In respect of the Ford bus he has in his employment a driver of the name Pathare, who holds a license in form 'B' entitling him to drive the bus as a vehicle 'let or plying for hire.' The applicant also holds a license in form 'A' under rule 3 (1) of the rules regulating the use of motor vehicles let or plying for hire which entitled him originally to let or ply the bus for hire on the Ratnagri-Kolhapur Road only. On April 28, 1929, the applicant was proceeding in the bus from Eatnagiri to Dapoli to interview the District Superintendent of Police who was encamped at Dapoli in order to obtain from him an extension of the ...
Mallappa Minappa Patil Vs. Venkaji Appaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom272; (1930)32BOMLR608
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with a point not material to this report, continued : ] On behalf of the appellants an application is made to us to allow additional evidence to be produced in appeal. It is alleged that certain important evidence was not produced on the advice of their pleader Mr. Lele. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed impugning the genuineness of the documents on which reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants, and setting forth the grounds against the production of additional evidence. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Civil Procedure Code,-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. But if-(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted [there is no refusal by the lower Court to admit evidence sought to be adduced now in appeal], or(b) the appellate Court requir...
Mahammad Mazaffar-al-musavi Vs. Jabeda Khatun
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR633
Viscount Sumner, J. 1. The appellant in this case was plaintiff in the suit. He is the hereditary mutwalli of an ancient wakf of large extent, and he claimed from the defendants possession of extensive lands, as property of the wakf, which he was entitled to resume. The defendants' answer was that the lands were an ancient istimrari tenure, held for a long though indefinite time at a fixed rent and as heritable property, of the appellant's predecessors, who had not only never contested the title, but had frequently acknowledged it by various overt acts. Other defences of limitation and estoppel were raised, but they need not now be considered. In substance, the facts necessary to support this defence were proved, though the actual date and circumstances of the origin of the tenure were not. The tenure had been sold in Court auctions for arrears of rent, and had been described as an istimrari mukarari tenure in 1859 and in 1902 ; rent receipts were produced for a long series of years, i...
Kamini Kumar Basu Thakur Vs. Birendra Nath Basu Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR639
Binod Mitter, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows :-The Basu family referred to in the pleadings in the suit, owned Taltola Hat and Bazar, which was an old and established Hat of considerable repute. It was originally held on land owned by the Basu family on the bank of the River Dhaleswari. The site of the Hat had to be changed from time to time owing to the action of the river, and ultimately, in the year 1916, there was no land owned and possessed by the family on which the Hat could be held and it was removed to some lands belonging to a Mussulman family. There was a great scramble for the purchase of such lands from the different members of the Mussulman family amongst the plaintiffs on the one hand and the principal defendants on the other. One Abdul Aziz purported to execute conveyance? in favour both of the plaintiffs and the principal defendants in respect of the same land, and in the course of the proceedings taken by both parties to have their respe...
Mallappa Minappa Patil and ors. Vs. Venkaji Appaji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.423
Patkar, J.1. The material portion of the judgment is given below:2. On behalf of the appellants an application is made to us to allow additional evidence to be produced in appeal. It is alleged that certain important evidence was not produced on the advice of their Pleader, Mr. Lele. On behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed impugning the genuineness of the documents on which reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants, and setting forth the grounds against the production of additional evidence. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Civil Procedure Code,-(I) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if-(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted [there is no refusal by the lower Court to admit evidence sought to be adduced now in appeal], or,(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produc...
Mahomed Habibulla Khan Vs. Aimila Automobile Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom220; (1930)32BOMLR411
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this interlocutory appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza the sole point is whether on the date of the application for security for coats under Order XXV, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff was ' residing out of British India.' The evidence of the plaintiff is really uncontradicted that he has been living in Poona for the last four years. Even the defendants in their affidavit have to admit that ho has been ' for some time past staying at Poona for change of air,' as they call it. It is also clear on the pleadings and the correspondence annexed thereto that the original transaction about this car was as long ago as February 1928. It further appears from a copy letter at page 29 of the papor-book, dated July 21, 1928, and addressed by the defendants to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was tlien living at ' 2008 St. Vincent Street, Poona' which is exactly the same address as he now has.2. It is contended that notwithstanding this le...
Emperor Vs. Sherif Dadumiyaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR332
Mirza, J.1. The applicant applies for revision of his conviction and sentence on a charge under Section 231 of the City of Bombay-Municipal Act.2. The Bombay Municipality acquired in 1924 certain premises at Bapty Road for a public purpose which was the extension of the Municipal workshops. At the date of the acquisition sixteen parsons including the applicant were in occupation of the premises as tenants from the original owner and were using the premises as bullock and buffalo stables. The Municipality did not proceed with the demolition of the stables but allowed the occupants to continue on the premises by leave and license. Later the Municipality experienced a difficulty in collecting compensation from the occupants and on March 10, 1925, entered into an agreement with the applicant whereby the applicant was to pay to the Municipality a monthly sum of Rs. 180 as compensation for the use and occupation by him as licensee of the said premises. During the continuance of the agreement...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »