Mumbai Court July 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.
Haidar Saheb Gulam Hussen Vs. MuniroddIn Chhotemir Pirjade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1420
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was entitled to get his name entered in place of the deceased Abas Ali and to do the work as the chief sharer in his place in connection with the moveables belonging to and the allowance available to the Darga of Peer Sayyad Sadamsha Hussaini and for an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing him in doing the work and getting his name entered in place of Abas Ali. The first Court, the Joint Subordinate Judge of Nasik, granted plaintiff the declaration he sought, but on appeal by the defendant the District Judge of Nasik set aside the decree on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the declaration asked for. This is a case under the Pensions Act in which there does not appear to be any reported authority. The facts are that there is a Darga at Nasik which owns certain property and receives a cash allowance from Government. The last holder was one Abas Ali who died in 1919. He had two brothers Chhotem...
In Re: Jivandas Savchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom490; (1930)32BOMLR1195; 129Ind.Cas.385
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1 This is an application in revision, which raises an important question of jurisdiction. The accused wen? placed on trial before the Additional Presidency Magistrate in Bombay charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and falsification of accounts under Section 477A. They took a preliminary objection that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the case, since the offences took place in Eangoon. The learned Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction, relying on the decision of this Court, Emperor v. Ramratan Chunilal ILR (1921) 46 Bom. 641. The accused then applied to this Court in revision, and on May 15, 1930, the case came before Mr. Justice Mirza and Mr. Justice Broomfield. They considered they were bound by the case of Emperor v. Ramratan Chunilal, but as other High Courts had come to a conclusion different from that which this Court had taken in the case referred to, they thought it desirable to have the case argued be...
Senaji Kapurchand Vs. Pannaji Devichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1607
Thankerton, J.1. Their Lordships need not call upon the respondents' counsel.2. They agree with the judgment of the Court below, and with the reasons given by that Court; accordingly, their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs....
In Re: Punamchand Lallubhai Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom1
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is a reference under the Stamp Act to determine what stamp ought to be attached to the sale deed dated 19th April 1928. The document starts with setting out a lease made by the Thakors who are the original grantees apparently from the Government. It states first of all at the bottom of p. 6 of the paper book that the assessment to which the land is subject is Rs. 163-13-6 and then it states that the lands are in the absolute possession of the Thakors and states:The Thakors who were the owners of the aforesaid lands have passed in writing a deed of permanent lease in my favour on the under mentioned termsand then in the next eight paragraphs are set out, as I understand it, the terms of the lease on which the assignor holds and the two most material provisions are Clauses 1 and 3. Clause 1 provides that five acres of land are to be held free from land revenue and then it provides:After deducting the same there remained lands measuring acres 200-15 gunthas. Land as...
Emperor Vs. Nurmahomed Kadarbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1279
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. These are applications in revision from the decision of the Sessions Judge, Surat, upholding the conviction of the accused before the Special Magistrate.2. Now, the accused-I am only referring to the accused, who have appealed to this Court-were charged originally under Section 147, 148, 149, 426, 451 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted under Sections 147, 440, and 380, Indian Penal Code, i.e., they were not convicted under Section 395, which deals with dacoity.3. The first point taken on behalf of the accused, by Mr. Velinker, is that the facts brought the case within Section 395 and showed that the offence of dacoity had been committed and that under the Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case of dacoity was not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate seems to have had some doubt whether the facts justified a charge of dacoity or not, and he was invited by the defence to deal with the case himself. Accepting th...
Anant Subrao Nadgir Vs. Mahableshwarbhat Gukunathbhat Shindgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1473; 129Ind.Cas.737
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, who was the adopted son of one Sharadabai, brought suit No. 337 of 1919 against Sharadabai for possession of the property of his adoptive father, and for setting aside alienations made by Sharadabai to various defendants, twenty three in number. In that property were included Section No. 51, pot No. 2, which is the subject of the present suit, and Section No. 88 and 89, all of which were in the possession of the present defendant. So far as regards Section No. 88 and 89 the plaintiff's case was that they had been improperly alienated by Sharadabai to the defendant. As regards the present Section No. 51, pot No. 2, possession was not claimed from the defendant, but from Sharadabai, but as a matter of fact this particular property had been alienated by the plaintiff' and Sharadabai by a deed of gift in favour of the defendant. That deed of gift, which was not attested, is void in law. The suit between the plaintiff' and Sharadabai was compromised, and there was...
Nurmahomed Kadarbhai Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom595; 129Ind.Cas.156
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. These are applications in revision from the decision of the Sessions Judge, Surat, upholding the conviction of the accused before the Special Magistrate.2. Now, the accused--I am only referring to the accused, who have appealed to this Court--were charged originally under Sections 147, 148, 149, 426, 451 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted under Sections 147, 440, and 380, Indian Penal Code, i.e., they were not convicted under Section 395, which deals with dacoity.3. The first point taken on behalf of the accused, by Mr. Velinker, is that the facts brought the case within Section 395 and showed that the offence of dacoity had been committed, and that under the Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case of dacoity was not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate seems to have had some doubt whether the facts justified a charge of dacoity or not, and he was invited by the defence to deal with the case himself. Acceptin...
Annaji Narayan Deshpande Vs. Venkatrao Sidrao Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.894
Patkar, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether a non-watandar auction-purchaser of the right, title and interest of a Watandar can convey an absolute title to his alienee who is a Watandar of the same watan.2. In January 1900 the right, title and interest of the plaintiff's father a Watandar was purchased by one Shivangi, who was a non-watandar, before the birth of the plaintiff in 1902. Shortly afterwards Shivangi sold the property to the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who was a Watandar of the same watan. In 1921 the plaintiff's father died, and in 1923 plaintiff brought this suit on the ground that the alienation was not valid after the death of the plaintiff's father.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the alienation was good and binding against the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court came to the contrary conclusion on the ground that the non-watandar auction-purchaser could not convey a larger right to his alienee even though he was a Watandar of the same wa...
Emperor Vs. Sitabai Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1140; 129Ind.Cas.591
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a revision application against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay convicting the three accused who are a sister and two brothers of stealing a barge named Gharapuri. Now it appears that an agreement for the sale of the barge was entered into between accused No. 1 Sitabai and the complainant Dharsey Mulji on July 29, 1929 (Exhibit A). The agreement provided that the barge should be sold for Rs. 1,05 L of which Rs. 300 were to be paid as earnest money, i.e., as deposit, that the vendor should give delivery of the barge to the purchaser at Sewree Bunder, that the vendor should paint, repair or cause to be repaired any defects in the said vessel and should give delivery in a perfectly sound and seaworthy condition on the same being certified to be so by a competent and certified surveyor, that the costs of painting, surveying and harbour charges after the barge came to Sewree Bunder should be borne by the purchaser, that until the surveyo...
Haridas Gangadas Vs. Ramdas Dharamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1381
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain possession of the property mentioned in the plaint from defendant No. 1, alleging that it belonged to one Gangadas Ramdas, and after him to his disciple Ganeshdas, and that Ganeshdas made a will before his death on November 12, 1910, by which he left the entire property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got possession and was in vahivat, but later on he appointed one Digambardas as manager while he went on pilgrimage, and on his return after eight or nine years he found defendant No. 1 in possession of the property, and hence the suit. The property in suit is property belonging to a Math. Defendant No. 1 denied the will, and said if there was any will it was illegal as being against the tenets of the Math. He also denied the execution of the will and took other objections. The first Court found that the will was proved, and valid, and gave plaintiff a decree for the property. The suit originally included moveable property and private property of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »