Mumbai Court April 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.
Bhikubai Chunilal Ambaidas Vs. Manilal Bhagchand Raychand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom517; (1930)32BOMLR1217
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff's as reversioners of one Rupchand who died on January 31, 1906, leaving two widows Kupabai and Motibai, who died in January 1917, and leaving a mother Chunabai who succeeded to the estate on the death of Rupabai and Motibai and died on November 3, 1921. The defendant is the daughter of Chunabai's daughter Eadhabai. During her life-time Chuuabai passed a deed of gift, Exhibit 90, dated November 14, 1919, of immoveable property in favour of the defendant. On the same day she passed a will, Exhibit 91, in respect of moveable property in favour of the defendant. The genealogy of the parties is as follows :-[The pedigree is set out in the statement of facts.]2. The property in suit belonged to Mohanchand who had effected a partition with his brothers Raychand and Kalyanchand. Rupchand made a will Exhibit 194 dated January 25,1906, by which he appointed his mother Chunabai as the manager of his property including the shop, and directed his...
Nina Dalal Vs. Merwanji Pheeozshaw Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1046
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal comes before us on the preliminary issue whether this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Judge decided that issue in the negative feeling himself bound by a decision of the appellate Court in Nusserwanji Wadia v. Eleonora Wadia (1913) 15 Bom. L.R. 693, I.L.R. 38 Bom. 125. The petitioner now appeals, and as this is a Full Bench, we are not bound, as the learned Judge was, by that particular decision. So in effect this appeal is an appeal from the decision in Wadia v. Wadia. The sole ground on which it is contended by the respondent that the judgment should be upheld is that both parties to the petition are not Christians but only one, and that, consequently, the jurisdiction given or continued to this Court by the Indian Divorce Act 1869, as subsequently amended, does not apply.2. As regards the facts, it is sufficient to say that the lady claims to be a Ru...
In Re Adarji Mancherji Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR576
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an application by one Adarji Mancherji Dalal for letters of administration limited to two policies standing in the name of the deceased Ratanji Mancherji Dalal. [After dealing with points not material to this report, his Lordship proceeded.]2. The facts in this case are that the petitioner and his brother Ratanji were carrying on business in partnership at various places, and in the course of such business had acquired considerable property for and on behalf of the partnership. Ratanji died leaving a will by which he appointed three executors, one of them being the petitioner himself. All the executors have renounced, and therefore, it follows that there is no general representative of the estate left.3. The evidence before me shows that in the course of the partnership business, the partners effected insurance on their own lives and obtained certain policies, some in the name of the deceased and others in the name of the petitioner. There is no doubt on the mat...
Ramkrishna Vithal Kulkarni Vs. Ramchandra Dattatraya Garaware
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1093
Mirza, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are as follows:-On February 4, 1911, a conciliator who was appointed under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act filed his agreement or award in Court in respect of disputes then existing between the mortgagee and the mortgagor of a certain property. The mortgagee at the time of the award was a minor who died in the year 193 7 being then still a minor without having executed the award which was in his favour. He left a widow, who also was a minor, as his heir according to Hindu law. The widow attained majority in the year 1923, and, within three years thereafter, in 1926 filed the present darkhast for executing the conciliator's award. It is conceded by Mr. Gajendragadkar on behalf of the appellant, the original judgment debtor's heir, that if we were to follow the ruling in Moro Sadashiv v. Visaji Raghunath ILR (1891) 16 Bom. 536 the execution proceedings would be in time. He urges, however, that we s...
Emperor Vs. Nanalal Dwarakadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom350
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of a conviction and sentence of the applicants by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Broach, for an offence in the case of applicants 1,' 2 and. 3 under Section 4, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, and in the case of applicants 4.and 5 for an offence under Section 5 of the same Act. The District Magistrate, Broach, has made a reference to this Court recommending that the sentences of applicants 1 and 2 may be enhanced. The application and reference have been heard together. The applicants were found in a house when the complainant, the Home Inspector of Police, entered it under a warrant issued to him by the District Superintendent of Police under the provisions of Section 6, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. On making a search of the house the Inspector found certain papers and account books which were of the nature of instruments of gambling. The accused were arrested by the Inspector under the warrant and the instruments of g...
Soott and Hodgson, Limited Vs. Keshavlal Nathubhai Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom529; (1930)32BOMLR1065
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are appealing against the judgment of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad on the ground that he has wrongly decided in the negative the point of law involved in issue No. 1, namely, whether the agreement between the parties that the property in the suit goods should not pass until the whole of the purchase-price had been paid, was valid and effective having regard to Sections 83 and 77 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. There were several other issues raised in the case all of which were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. And there are cross-objections before us in respect of them. But we have taken first this point of law because it is the decisive issue in the suit in certain events.2. The contract which was made in India is contained in three letters of February 1, 9 and 9, 1923. By the first letter, Exhibit 42, the plaintiffs were to supply an engine and a boiler therein specified for in all 3,480 packed and delivere...
Scott and Hodgson Limited Vs. Keshavlal-nathubhai Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.26
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. The plaintiffs are appealing against the judgment of the learned First Glass Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad on the ground that he has wrongly decided in the negative the point of law involved in issue No. 1, namely, whether the agreement between the parties that the property in the suit goods should not pass until the whole of the purchase price had been paid, was valid and effective having regard to Sections 83 and 77 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. There were several other issues raised in the case all of which were decided in favour of the plaintiffs And there are cross-objections before us in respect of them. But we have taken first this point of law because it is the decisive issue in the suit in certain events.2. The contract which was made in India is contained in three letters of February 1, 9 and 9, 1923. By the first letter, Ex. 42, the plaintiffs were to supply an engine and a boiler therein specified for in all 3,480 packed and delivered for ship...
Emperor Vs. Mangubhai Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR790
Mirza, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Surat, expressing an opinion that the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 12 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act by the First Class Magistrate, Surat City, is bad in law. The case is reported to this Court for its consideration. The accused were arrested while they were gambling in a hotel. The First Class Magistrate, Surat City, who tried the case, was of opinion that the arrest was not illegal as a hotel could be regarded as a public place within the meaning of Section 12 of the Gambling Act. Section 12 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act is as follows :-A Police-officer may apprehend without warrant-(a) any person found gaming in any public street, or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access or in any race-course ...2. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the case is covered by the authority of Emperor v. Hussein (1905) 8 Bom. L.R. 22 where the word...
Emperor Vs. Y.A. Gafur Karimbax Pathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR785
Broomfield, J.1. The District Magistrate, Kolaba, has forwarded to this Court the papers in three cases pending in the Court of the First Class Magistrate Panvel and asks for directions under Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the place in which and the Court by which the said cases ought to be tried. The accused in these three cases is one Y. Section Gafur Karimbax Pathan. He is said to belong to Shrinagar but has been living at Panvel, where he has been leading the life of a Fakir and calling himself a ' Director of Mesmerism.' On July 6, 1928, the accused sent a parcel by value payable post for Rs. 2-8-0 to one Vithal Shankar Gulve of Poona. On July 16, 1928, he sent a similar parcel by value payable post for the same amount to the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, and on the same day he sent a third parcel by value payable post for the same amount to the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar. The parcels contained nothing but a paper on which was written what purported to be the fi...
Emperor Vs. Heptulla Alibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom352; (1930)32BOMLR757
Mirza, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order of the Bench of Second Class Honorary Magistrates, Surat, acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 193 of the Bombay City Municipalities Act of 1925.2. The accused had constructed a drain on land which belonged to the Municipality of Surat without having first obtained permission from the Municipality in that behalf. He was prosecuted for that offence and was fined Rs. 10 on February 28, 1929. On April 8, 1929, the Chief Officer of the Surat City Municipality addressed a notice to the accused calling upon him under Section 137 of the Bombay City Municipalities Act of 192,5 to arrange to demolish the drain in respect of the construction of which he had been previously prosecuted and fined, within four days of the receipt of the notice and intimating that if he failed to comply with the direction within that time he would be prosecuted under a 193 of the Ace. The notice refers to a resolution No. 17 of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »