Mumbai Court December 1930 Judgments
Kisanji Mohanlal Seth Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR510
Madgavkar, J.1. The defendants-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the plaintiff-respondent Bai Laxmi, widow of Chhaganlal, the deceased son of the defendant-appellant No. 1 Kisanji. On March 18, 1922, the respondent on the one hand passed a release in favour of the appellants in respect of 'all sorts of rights, viz., food, clothing etc.,' during her life for a sum of Rs. 500, Rs. 200 payable immediately, and Rs. 800 in annual installments on various dates, the last being April 19, 1924. Defendant No. 2 passed a promissory note in her favour for Rs. 300. In 19:23 the respondent filed a suit No. 14S of 192 i for one installment. The appellants objected on the allegation that she was unchaste but offered a special oath, which the respondent took. The respondent filed the present suit on December 9, 1927, in respect of the last installment of Rs. 100. The appellants raised two objections, the first of limitation and the second of unchastity. The trial C...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dharmanand Kosambi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR333
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in respect of fifty-five persona who were convicted under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XIV of 1908 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the City Magistrate, Bandra. The papers were sent for at the instance of the High Court because it was thought that the convictions might conflict with the recent decisions of this Court, viz., Emperor v. Balkrishna Hirlekar (1930) 33 Bom. L.R. 82 and Emperor v. Shripad (1930) 33 Bom. L.R. 90.2. In the first place, it was thought from the dates that the declaration that the Upnagar Satyagraha Chhavani, of which the accused were convicted of being members, was unlawful might not have been notified in the Bombay Government Gazette before the date of their arrest. As the Advocate General said that he was in a position to prove this point we allowed evidence to be called. Mr. Jayakar, District Magistrate, Bombay Suburban District, was examined as a witness and I accept...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Narayan Bedarkar Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR772
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the District Judge of Ratnagiri, who dismissed the plaintiffs' action on the preliminary ground that it was barred by limitation.2. The dispute arises in this way. The plaintiff's allege that the land in suit is alluvial land, and that under Section 63 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code the Collector is bound, if with due regard to the interests of the public revenue he thinks the land should be disposed of, to offer the same to the occupant of the adjoining land (namely, the plaintiffs), the maximum price being three times the annual assessment. That claim was made as long ago as 1911, and in that year the Collector took the view that the land in suit was not alluvial land, that it was marsh land which vested in the Government, and on that view he disposed of the land in favour of defendant No. 2 under Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.3. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary point as to limitation on the au...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Ranchhoddas Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR828
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 98, Clause (3), Civil Procedure Code, and Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, on a difference of opinion between Patkar and Barlee JJ., in First Appeal No. 421 of 1926.2. The land in dispute is the Ahmedabad City Survey No. 466. Both the learned Judges agreed that it was Government land, which was leased to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs-appellants. The Government records, which would have furnished a decisive proof as to the term of the tenure, were destroyed in the riots in Ahmedabad in 1921, and in regard to this term and the burden of proof the learned Judges differ, Mr. Justice Patkar holding that the onus is on the defendant-respondent, the Secretary of State, to prove that the term has ended and that he can impose fresh terms, and Mr. Justice Barlee holding that the burden is on the plaintiffs-appellants and that the term of ninety-nine years from 1824 has ended. The original case for the appellants that it was their own...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. M.S. Adhikari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR325
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. These are applications in revision in which eight accused were convicted of an offence under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908.2. The accused do not dispute that they were members of a procession which was proceeding along a street in Bombay on October 16. Their case is that the procession was of a religious character and not of a political character.3. The way the case is put against them is that by a notification in the Official Gazette the Akhil Bharat Prabhat Feri Sangha was declared an unlawful association, and that one of its objects--as far as I know its only object--was to control processions of a political character which took place in the early mornings, and that the procession of which the accused were members was, in fact, of a political character, and that therefore the persons taking part in it were assisting the operations of the unlawful association, the Akhil Bharat Prabhat Feri Sangha, and thus committing an offence under ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gangubai Ramdas Khemji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR319
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by a third party on behalf of two ladies who were convicted of an offence under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, and sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.2. The accused wore charged with what is usually called picketing. They were stationed in front of a cloth shop, which sold foreign cloth, and they were endeavoring to persuade people not to enter the shop and buy foreign cloth. They were not charged under what is called the picketing Ordinance, but, as I have said, they were charged under Section 17 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with assisting the operations of an unlawful association.3. The question whether particular acts amount to assisting the operations of an unlawful association within the meaning of the section must always be one of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case. There must, I think, be some limitation upon the generality of t...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Adhikari Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.477
Beaumont, C.J.1. These are applications in revision in which eight accused were convicted of an offence under Section 17(1), Criminal Law Amendent Act of 1908.2. The accused do not dispute that they were members of a procession which was proceeding along a street in Bombay on 16th October. Their case is that the pro-cession was of a religious character and not of a political character.3. The way the case is put against them is that by a notification in the Official Gazette the Akhil Bharat Prabhat Feri Sangh was declared an unlawful association and that one of its objects, as far as I know its only object, was to control processions of a political character which took place in the early mornings and that the procession of which the accused were members was in fact of a political character and that, therefore, the persons taking part in in were assisting the oper-ations of the unlawful association the Akhil Bharat Prabhat Feri Sangh, and those committing an offence under the said sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Gangubai Ramdas Khemji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.470
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by a third party on behalf of two ladies who were convicted of an offence under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, and sentenced to 'four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.2. The accused were charged with what is usually called picketing. They were stationed in front of a cloth shop which sold foreign cloth, and they were endeavouring to persuade people not to enter the shop and buy foreign cloth, They were not charged under what is called the Picketing Ordinance, but, as I have said, they were charged under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, with assisting the operations of an unlawful association.3. The question whether particular acts amount to assisting the operations of an unlawful association within the meaning of the section must always be one of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case. There must, I think, be some limitation upon the generality of the words. It may...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sohrab Palanji Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR314
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by accused No. 2 from a conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XIV of 1908. The facts are not in dispute. Accused No. 2 in the printer and publisher of a daily newspaper known as the Bombay Chronicle, It is not disputed that the War Council of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee is an association which has been declared unlawful by Government under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. On November 15, 1930, the accused printed and published in the issue of the Bombay Chronicle for that day a short notice that a meeting would be held under the auspices of the War Council in connection with what was called 'Jawahar day'. On November 16, 1930, a longer notice appeared in the Chronicle in which the War Council's programme was announced as under. It started by saying:--'Mass meeting at Chowpatty at 6 p. m. Standard Time'. Then the notice gave the programme of the meeting and then it...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Natvarlal Nagindas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR312
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference to us by the District Magistrate of Surat. The two accused in this case who were alleged to be under the age of fifteen years were convicted of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the First Class Magistrate of Chorasi. The learned Magistrate, acting under Section 563 of the Criminal Procedure Code, released the accused on their entering into a bond of Rs. 50 to be of good behavior for two months. The District Magistrate has referred the case to us saying that the learned Magistrate who tried the case had no jurisdiction to do so because he is not one of those specially empowered under Section 29B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2. Section 29B of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that any offence, other than one punishable with death or transportation for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the Court is under the age of fifteen years may be tried by the class of Magistrates the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »