Mumbai Court November 1930 Judgments
Ramchandra Balwant Tilak Vs. Narasinha Chintaman Kelkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR590
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case proceeded:] On appeal it is contended on behalf of the appellants, first, that the suit against the minor should be dismissed as he has not done anything himself so as to justify the award of injunctions against him. With regard to appellant No. 1 it is contended that the trust-deed and the rent-note on which the plaintiffs' suit is based are invalid, and assuming that they are valid, the alleged misdeeds were the innocent acts of the original defendants as landlords, and are not sufficient in law to warrant a decree for injunctions against appellant No. 1.2. I. shall first deal with the case of minor appellant No. 2. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge held that an injunction could be given against a minor and that defendant No. 1 as the guardian of the minor son of defendant No. 2 denied the rights claimed by the plaintiffs, and that if no injunction was granted against the minor defendant, it was likely that de...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Issuf Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR305
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge of Surat. The accused were charged with the offence of rape under Section 876 and Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was tried by a jury, and the jury after the absence of an hour returned a verdict of guilty, unanimous as regards accused No. 2, and by a majority of 4 to 1 as regards accused No. 1. That being so, we can only interfere with the verdict of the jury on a point of law.2. Now, the story shortly of the complainant was that she was raped by the two accused, who are boys of seventeen years of age, in a creek at the back of the house where she worked. The story had some curious features about it, because the medical evidence was that the complainant's body showed no marks of violence, though the alleged offence took place on stony ground, and no attempt seems to have been made by the complainant to summon help though there were various people i...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Narayan Dhapre Vs. Lakshman Mahadev Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR551
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover possession of the land in suit on the ground that the land was their ancestral property and that the defendants were their annual tenants.2. The defendants contended that the grant to the plaintiff's was of the royal share of the revenue and was not of the soil, and that the defendants were permanent tenants, under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.3. Both the Courts have found that the grant to the plaintiffs was of the soil. The learned Subordinate Judge found that in the year 1758 one Kasi Ghadge was the tenant of the lands in suit, and therefore came to the conclusion that the defendants' family came to occupy the land after the year 1758. There is no evidence as to who was in possession between the years 1758 and 1860. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, held that as the history of the tenancy of the suit land for about one hundred years was not clearly established the tenancy of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Abubaker Mohamad Vs. Amiabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR614
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit as a short cause for the administration of the estate of his father one Mohamed Aboobaker deceased, Defendant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased, and defendant No. 2, who is a minor, is the daughter of the deceased. Defendant No. 1 is appointed guardian adlitem of defendant No. 2. One of the prayers of the plaint is for the appointment of a receiver and another prayer is for an injunction against defendant No. 1. It seems that no steps have been taken to obtain any interim relief.2. Prior to the suit appearing on board for disposal the plaintiff's attorneys wrote to defendant No. 2's attorneys informing them that the suit had been settled and was not to be proceeded with. Similarly, defendant No. 1, as the guardian adlitem of defendant No. 2, informed defendant No. 2's attorneys that she had settled the suit out of Court and they should not appear at the hearing. Defendant No. 2's attorneys have briefed counsel who has placed these facts before...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Ramchandra Jog and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom129
Beaumont, C.J. 1. These are three cases which have been argued together because they have certain features in common. Reference No. 88 of 1930 is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Nasik made to us under Section438, Criminal P.C. The other two cases Applications Nos. 412 and 426 are applications in revision by the accused persons. The features which the cases have in common are these: In all the cases the accused are charged with being members of associations rendered unlawful by a declaration of the Bombay Government notified in a Gazette Extraordinary dated 19th August 1930. It is alleged in each case that the association of which the accused were members was one of those referred to in the schedule to that declaration. Each of the accused was prosecuted under Section17(2), Criminal Law Amendment Act 14 of 1908, for taking part in the management of an unlawful association. But in the two revision cases the accused were actually sentenced under Section17(1) of that Act.2. The firs...
Tag this Judgment!Bullappa Bhimappa Kyasakhiyayar Vs. Tippangowda Basangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR517
Madgavkar, J.1. The questions in this appeal are, firstly, whether the plaintiffs-appellants' suit is barred by limitation, and, secondly, whether the defendants-respondents have no right of way, as the plaintiffs-appellants asserted. Both the lower Courts held in favour of the appellants on the second point. In the trial Court no issue of limitation was raised. In the District Court the respondents contended that the plaintiffs' suit in respect of the same right of way in the Mamlatdar's Court having failed on April 1, 1922, Article 14 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act applied and the present suit was barred by limitation, being instituted on April 1, 1925. The District Court, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. On the question of limitation, under Article 14, 'To set aside any act or order of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for, the period of li...
Tag this Judgment!Shidappa Laxmanna Agasar Vs. Gurusangaya Akhandaya Hiremath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR537
Patkar, J.1. This case involves a somewhat difficult question of law arising under Sections 63 and 73 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appellants are two decree-holders in darkhasts Nos. 281 of 1925 and 282 of 1925 in the Muddebihal Court. Darkhast No. 281 of 1925 was filed to recover Rs. 4,169-12 against respondent No. 2, the judgment-debtor. On November 18, 1926, one survey number of the respondent was sold for Rs. 8.200 out of which Rs. 800 were paid on November 19, 192b, and Rs. 2,400 were paid on December 8, 1926. The other darkhast No. 282 was filed to recover Rs. 9,609. On November 17, 1926, the decree-holder applied to set off' the purchase-money against his decretal amount, and in execution all the lands in Bhaugargund were sold for Rs. 6,100. He was allowed to set off the whole of the decretal amount against the purchase-money, and paid one-fourth of the balance of the purchase-money on November 18, 1926, and three-fourths of the balance on December 3, 1926.3. Respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Haji Hamed Vs. Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Bom42; (1931)33BOMLR1364
Wadia, J.1. This suit has boon set down for the trial of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction under a Judge's order dated February 27, 1930. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants as his agents praying for an account of all the dealings and transactions in jute, hessians and gunny-bags entered into by the defendants on plaintiff's behalf from about October 1927 to about June 1929. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants carry on business in Bombay and in Calcutta and a material part of the cause of action has arisen in Bombay. Leave under el. 12 of the Letters Patent has been granted to him. Defendants deny the allegations. The trial of the issue came on before Mr. Justice Mirza on October 9, and on November 11, 1930, when the plaintiff's counsel opened his case and the plaintiff was examined and partly cross-examined. Thereafter by consent of parties and with the permission of the learned Judge it was transferred to my board as Mr. Justice Mirza's board was congested, and...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. P.L.K.M.R.M. Chettyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR867
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Rangoon by which the Court on appeal from the District Judge in bankruptcy reversed the decision of the District Judge in a matter which arose in the separate bankruptcies of a man named Maung Ba Than and his wife, Ma Ngwe Tin, who were engaged in some kind of commercial enterprise (not very clearly defined) in Kyauktan. The husband and wife were separately adjudicated bankrupt on November 28, 1927, on the petition of a petitioning creditor, a money-lender, who, in his petition, called attention to an alleged mortgage by the debtors in July of the same year, Shortly afterwards the Official Receiver was appointed receiver, and a subsequent application was made by him to declare fraudulent the mortgage in question. The actual application was made under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which provided that:-Any transfer of property not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage or made i...
Tag this Judgment!Ballappa Bhimappa and ors. Vs. Tippangowda Basangowda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom256
Madgavkar, J. 1. The questions in this appeal are, firstly, whether the plaintiffs appellants' suit is barred by limitation; and, secondly, whether the defendants respondents have no right of way as the plaintiffs appellants asserted. Both the lower Courts held in favor of the appellants on the second point. In the trial Court no issue of limitation was raised, In the District Court the respondents contended that the plaintiffs' suit in respect of the same right of way in the mamlatdar's Court having failed on 1st April 1922, Article 14, Schedule 2, Lira. Act, applied and the present suit was barred by limitation, being instituted on 1st April 1925. The District Court therefore set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal. On the question of limitation under Article 14: To set aside any act or order of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for, 2. the period of limitation is one year from the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »