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.
In Re: Shivlingappa Bhagappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom372; (1930)32BOMLR782
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, III Division, Dhar-war, refusing to take action on an application made by the petitioner to that Court that the proceedings against him now pending in the Court of the same Magistrate may be terminated and he may be discharged. The petitioner is being tried for offences under Sections 164 to 165 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, They are cognizable offences. Proceedings against the petitioner were started by Ex. 1A which was an application made to the District Magistrate asking that an investigation may be directed against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate having made an order for investigation under that section the police-officer, N. S. Gurtu, made an investigation and thereafter filed a charge sheet before the Court. The case has proceeded on the basis of this application Ex. 1A and the charge shee...
Manchersha Ardesar Vs. Govind Ganesh Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom424; (1930)32BOMLR1035
Shingne, J.1. This is a suit to recover a debt due on two promissory notes Exhibits 54 and 56, executed by defendant No. 3 in his personal capacity. The promissory note Exhibit 54 dated June 3, 1925, was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 alone and the promissory note Exhibit 56 dated July 81, 1925, was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. There is evidence to show that the dealings of both the plaintiffs are joint and the Court of first instance has found that both the plaintiffs are jointly interested in the two promissory notes in suit. This finding is not challenged by respondent's pleader. Exhibit 54 was for a sum of Rs. 5|200 due under an account and Exhibit 56 was for a sum of Rs. 300. Out of this sum of Rs. 300 a sum of Rs. 100 is stated to have been borrowed on June 7, 1925.2. Five persons were impleaded as defendants one of whom, , viz., defendant No. 5, is a minor. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are full brothers and defendant No. 5...
Nilkanth Balwant Natu Vs. Vidya Narasinh Bharati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1527
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. The first appeal is by the plaintiffs in the suit, and the cross-appeal is by the second defendant, Vidya Narasinh Bharati Guru.2. The plaintiffs brought the suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Satara, as successors in-title to one Balaji Narayan Natu, who was the mortgagee under certain mortgage deeds specified in the plaint, and executed between the years 1840 and 1844.3. The mortgages were made by Vidya Shankar Bharati, who is deceased.4. The first and second defendants were rival claimants to the office of Jagad Guru of the Sankeshwar and Karvir Math, and each of them claimed to be the sole successor of the mortgagor.5. Respondent No. 1 is the legal representative of defendant No. 1.6. The cross-appeal presented by defendant No. 2 is with reference to mortgaged properties situate in Kolhapur district and is based upon the allegation that the Satara Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with regard to the said properties in Kolhapur, whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›