Mumbai Court November 1931 Judgments
Prem NaraIn Vs. Ram Charan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR494
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal, by special leave, by Prem Narain, a minor, through his mother, Musammat Chameli, against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated April 12, 1927, which varied a decree of the District Judge of Aligarh dated March15, 1924, and decreed the major part of the plaintiffs' claim.2. The suit was brought in pursuance of the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by five persons, who were alleged to have an interest in certain property which was specified in the plaint, and which was stated to be endowed property and the subject-matter of a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.3. Prem Narain, the appellant, was the first of five defendants.4. The reliefs asked for in the plaint were as follows : a declaration that the property was an endowed property; that the defendants should be dismissed from the managership and trusteeship thereof; that a scheme for the management of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mohsinbhai Fateali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR313; 137Ind.Cas.142
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, who convicted the accused of cheating and sentenced him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate gave a long and exhaustive judgment, but I think some of the facts with which he deals are not relevant. The relevant facts are very few.2. The accused is a retail trader, and the complainant is a wholesale dealer, and on September 16, the accused, through his servant, ordered certain rolls of lead sheets which are referred to in the charge. The price to be paid was Rs. 561, and as the goods were not at the moment in Bombay but were on board a ship in the docks, they were to be delivered as soon as they were unloaded. They were in fact delivered on September 24, It is disputed in the evidence as to what the exact terms of payment were. According to the complainant's case the accused promised expressly to pay on October 1, According to the accused's case there w...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Bhai Thakur Vs. J.D. Davar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom199; (1932)34BOMLR443
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there was a petition presented to the High Court by oneRamkrishna Bhai Thakur which asked us to take disciplinary action against Mr. J.D. Davar, Advocate on the Original Side. The matter was referred to a. Tribunal of the Bar Council under Section 10 of the Indiaq Bar Council Act.2. The gist of the complaint in the petition was that Mr. Davar had used language unfairly abusive in describing the applicant and his witnesses. It appears that the applicant had launched a prosecution against a Doctor Deshmukh and another for negligence in the carrying on of their profession and Mr. Dava appeared in those proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate as counsel for Dr. Deshmukh. It appears from Mr. Davar's statement before the Tribunal that the case was, in the view of the accused persons, what is generally described as a black mailing prosecution, that is to say, the accused considered that the prosecution was launched really for the purpose of extorti...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Sannidhiraju Subbarayudu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR500
Viscount Dunedin, J. 1. The original plaintiff in this suit is dead and the suit is continued by his legal representatives. The plaintiff owned land abutting on a branch of the Godavari called the Chilapa Kalva. From that, in exercise of what he considered his riparian rights, he took water. The Government, through the Collector of Godavari, charged a water cess of Rs. 8-5-8 for his use of the water, He paid under protest and then raised the present suit against the Government to recover the money so paid.2. The sole question, therefore, is whether the water-cess was legally levied. The cess bore to be levied in virtue of the provisions of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, No. VII of 1865. The preamble of the Act is in these terms :-Whereas, in several districts of the Madras Presidency, large expenditure out of Government funds has been, and is still being, incurred in the construction and improvement of works of irrigation and drainage, to the great advantage of the country and of prop...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. P.X. D'souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR286
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate Third Court, for an offence under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention ofGambling Act. The accused was fined Rs. 100.2. The first point taken on behalf of the accused by Mr. Talpade is that although this is a case in which no appeal lies,nevertheless the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded the evidence, and that without a record of the evidence the conviction ought not to be upheld. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that in every case in which an appeal lies the evidence shall be recorded in the manner specified. Thenin Sub-section (4) it is provided that is cases other than those specified in Sub-section (1), that is to say, in cases in which an appeal does not lie, it shall not be necessary for a Presidency Magistrate to record the evidence or frame a charge. That exception to the general rule was no doubt inserted in order to save th...
Tag this Judgment!P.X. D'souza Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom180; 137Ind.Cas.188
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, for an offence under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The accused was fined Rs. 100.2. The first point taken on behalf of the accused by Mr. Talpade is that although this is a case in which no appeal lies, nevertheless, the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded the evidence, and that without a record of the evidence the conviction ought not to be upheld. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that in every case in which an appeal lies the evidence shall be recorded in the manner specified. Thenin Sub-section (4) it is provided that in cases other than those specified in Sub-section (1), that is to say, in cases in which an appeal does not lie, it shall not be necessary for a Presidency Magistrate to record the evidence or frame a charge. That exception to the general rule was no doubt inserted in order to save the time...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Philip Rangel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR282
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, of the applicant under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is, I think, rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrate did not recall to his mind the terms of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and decline to go into the matter at all, because it is really the sort of case which ought not to be allowed to take up the time of the criminal Courts.3. It appears that there was a meeting on February 13, 1931, of the shareholders of the Central Telegraph Office Credit Cooperative Bank Limited. The accused had been one of the twenty-six persons who had requisitioned the meeting, and at the meeting it was proposed that the requisitionists should be expelled from the company. The accused was very angry at this, and ha said that not even the Governor-General could expel members from the company. He then proceeded to leave the room, and as he was leaving the room ...
Tag this Judgment!Parshotamdas Chunilal Shah Vs. Bhagubhai Nathubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom486; (1932)34BOMLR931
Baker, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a suit from the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, to the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court on the ground that there is already a suit between the same parties pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court in which the same questions are involved. The application, which is under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, raises a point of law, on which there is no ruling of this Court, though there is one of the Madras High Court. The point is that the suit in the Small Cause Court is for Rs. 900 odd, whereas the Small Cause Court powers of the Second Class Subordinate Judge extend only to Rs. 300, and hence it is contended that the transfer must be to a Court competent to try the suit, and as under Clause (4) Section 24 the suit must be tried as a Small Cause suit, and the Subordinate Judge's Small Cause Court powers do not extend to the value of the suit, the transfer is incompetent, as the Local Government alone has power to confer jurisdiction u...
Tag this Judgment!Philip Rangel Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom193; 137Ind.Cas.186
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, of the applicant under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Cede.2. It is, I think, rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrate did not recall to his mind the terms of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code and decline to go into the matter at all, because it is really the sort of case which ought not to be allowed to take up the time of the Criminal Courts.3. It appears that there was a meeting on February 13, 1931, of the share-holders of the Central Telegraph Office Credit Cooperative Bank Limited. The accused had been one of the twenty six persons who had requisitioned the meeting, and at the meeting it was proposed that the requisitionists should be expelled from the company. The accused was very angry at this, and he said that not even the Governor-General could expel members from the company. He then proceeded to leave the room, and as he was leaving the room he mutter...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Kirtyanand Singh Vs. Raja Prithi Chand Lal Chaudhury
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1931
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR526
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna, which affirmed an order dated September 19, 1927, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr.2. The question arises in this way. On April 1, 1914, a decree was made in certain rent suits by which by consent the present appellants, or their predecessors, obtained a decree for Rs. 1,84,521, besides further interest thereon at eight annas per cent, per month.3. It was provided by the decree that the plaintiff should not take out execution of the decree until March 1915, so that there was a year's suspension.4. The respondent was a consenting party to the decree in his capacity as surety. The result of that apparently is that the decree can under Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code be executed against him as though he were a party to the suit and the principal debtor.5. The plaintiffs thereafter made a number of applications for execution.6. The first was made on June 23, 1915, and apparently was struck off ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »