Mumbai Court June 1931 Judgments
Emperor Vs. K.R. Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1192
Patkar, Ag. C.J.1. These are four applications for quashing the order of commitment of the several accused under different sections of the Indian Penal Code passed on May 14,1931, by the Special Magistrate appointed to try the case. It is not necessary to mention all the facts leading to the prosecution of the accused in this case. The commitment can be quashed under Section 215 by this Court only on a point of law.2. The first point taken on behalf of the accused is that the case was started as a warrant case and the learned Magistrate led the accused to believe that he was trying the case under Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code and not inquiring under Chapter XVIII of the Code, and therefore the accused had no opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and leading evidence on their behalf before the Magistrate. It is further urged that though the Magistrate had power to commit the accused under Section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was boun...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Bhat Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Bom517
Patkar, Ag. C.J. 1. These are four applications for quashing the order of commitment of the several accused under different sections of the Indian Penal Code passed on 14th May 1931, by the Special Magistrate appointed to try the case. It is not necessary to mention all the facts leading to the prosecution of the accused in this case. The commitment can be quashed Under Section 215 by this Court only on a point of law. 2. The first point taken on behalf of the accused is that the case was started as a warrant case and the learned Magistrate led the accused to believe that he was trying the case under Ch. 21, Criminal P.C., and not inquiring under Ch. 18 of the Code, and therefore the accused had no opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses and leading evidence on their behalf before the Magistrate. It is further urged that though the Magistrate had power to commit the accused Under Section 347, Criminal P.C., the Magistrate was bound to proceed according to the procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Pandurang Gosavi Vs. Lakshman Mahadev Pohekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom15; (1931)33BOMLR1418; 136Ind.Cas.161
Baker, J.1. In the year 1790 A. D. the village of Takli in the Ahmednagar District was granted by the Holkar Darbar by a Sanad to Bhanudas, the great-grandfather of the plaintiffs and his brother Eknath. The property descended to the male issue of the grantees and ultimately to Manohar and Eknath uncles of the plaintiffs who are the sons of Eknath's sister. From the year 1875 the Inamdars had been mortgaging the inam to various persons and ultimately by a decree of the High Court the right of Eknath to redeem the property, Manohar being dead, was declared to be foreclosed.2. The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs, the nephews of Eknath, for a declaration that the inam being for religious and charitable purposes is inalienable and consequently the mortgagees were not entitled to deprive the Inamdars of it. Eknath was defendant No. 5 in the suit as he did not join as plaintiff. He has since died.3. The prayers of the plaintiffs were for a declaration to the effect that the income...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrao Khandero Vijaykar Vs. Vasantrao Ganpatrao Vijaykar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom588; (1932)34BOMLR1371
Wadia, J.1. This is a petition for probate of the last will and testament of Sonabai, wife of Rao Saheb Ganpatrao Khanderao Vijayakar, who is the first petitioner. She died at Bombay on November 28, 1930, and her will is dated July 18, 1930. The 2nd petitioner is the son-in-law of the deceased and the first petitioner, being the husband of their predeceased daughter Sundrabai. The petitioners are the executors of the will. Sundrabai died in 1925 leaving a son Vasudeo, who is still a minor. The caveator, Vasantrao, is the only son of the deceased and the first petitioner. In the affidavit in support of his caveat he alleges that the will propounded by the petitioners is not the will of his deceased mother, that the signature on the will is not her signature and that she never understood nor approved of its contents, as she was demented and of a weak and inert mind since April 1928 down to the date of her death, He further alleges that the will was executed under the undue influence of t...
Tag this Judgment!B. Iswarayya Vs. Swarnam Iswarayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1402
Russell, J.1. The principal question which is raised for decision by this appeal is whether, under the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869), the Court, having once made an order granting permanent alimony to a wife who has obtained a decree for judicial separation, has power to make a subsequent order increasing the amount of such alimony. In addition, some points of minor importance are involved, as will subsequently appear.2. The respondent, having obtained a decree for judicial separation against her husband, the appellant, applied for permanent alimony under Section 37 of the Act. Upon that application, an order was made on February 1, 1922, by which the husband was ordered to pay to the wife Rs. 120 a month for her life. An order was also made against him for the payment of Rs. 120 a month in respect of the four children of the marriage. The wife and children appealed. Pending the appeals, the means of the husband had apparently permanently improved; for the High Court at Madras (while...
Tag this Judgment!Vatsalabai Vinayak Nimkar Vs. Vasudev Vishnu Musale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom83; (1931)33BOMLR1483
Patkak, Ag. C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the property in suit by inheritance to their grandmother, Parvatibai, the widow of Pandurang, who died in the year 1924. Defendant No. 1 is the brother and defendant No. 2 is the nephew of Pandurang the husband of Parvatibai.2. On January 21, 1922, there was a deed of partition, Exhibit 38, between Parvatibai on the one hand and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the other, under which outstandings to the extent of Rs. 2,100 were allotted to the widow and she had to pay debts amounting to Rs. 1,500 to the creditors. The widow, therefore, got property worth Rs. 600. The defendants, on the other hand, got property worth Rs. 1,183 subject to the liability to maintain Rukhmabai, another widow in the family. The material portion of the document is as follows:--We hereby declare that we have no right, title and interest whatsoever in the said property under any circumstances whether you adopt a son and give it to h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.S. Shirke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1177
Patkar, Ag. C.J.1. The question arising in this case is whether the accused can be prosecuted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code without the sanction of Government under Section, 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The accused is the administrative officer of a school-board appointed under Section 9(1) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, (Bom. Act IV of 1923), Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code relates to a public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a Local Government or some higher authority. It is not disputed that the accused is a public servant. Under Section 9(8) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, (Bom. Act IV of 1923), the school board administrative officer shall not, save with the previous sanction of the Government, be removable from office, reduced or suspended, unless by the votes of at least two thirds of the whole number of councilors. It would, therefore, follow that he can be removed from his office without the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Yesu Kargutkar Vs. H.H. Khem Sawant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom3; (1931)33BOMLR1303
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, the Sar Desai of Sawantwadi, sued thirty-three defendants for possession of the property in suit after removal of the buildings which defendants had built on the land, for arrears of rent, and for costs, alleging that the property which belongs to the Savantwadi State was leased for twenty-five years from April 1,1897, to one Narayan Venku Kargutkar, who is the ancestor of the Hindu defendants, and one Farsoo Niklu who is the ancestor of defendants Nos. 10 to 12. The other defendants held under these defendants. The defendants set up various pleas of permanent tenancy, limitation, and so forth, and claimed compensation. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Vengurla, awarded plaintiff possession as against defendants Nos. 1 to 17 and the heirs of defendant No, 18, but dismissed his suit as against the Christian defendants other than defendants Nos. 2 to 16, who were held to be ancient tenants of their portion liable to pay rent to the plaintiff according ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Anna Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1164
Patkar Ag. C.J.1. The accused in this case was deported by the Commissioner of Police on December 15, 1926, The order expired in 1928. Again, on June 3, 1930, he was arrested and on June 4, another order for deportation wag passed by the Commissioner, Ex. A. The accused disobeyed the order and came within the limits of Bombay, and was arrested on September 9, 1930. He was tried before the Third Presidency Magistrate, and was acquitted. The learned Magistrate sent for the papers and documents which formed the basis of the order by the Commissioner of Police, and on failure to produce them he drew an inference that the order was not justified. He was also not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of Mr. Tawade, the Sub-Inspector and Mr. Lyon, Inspector of Police, and on the evidence came to the conclusion that the matter relating to the deportation of the accused was rushed through, that the accused was working at a panshop and was not in the habit of extorting money from people...
Tag this Judgment!Akbarally A. Adamji Peerbhoy Vs. Mahomedally Adamji Peerbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom356; (1932)34BOMLR655
Tyabji, J.1. This suit has a long history into which I need not enter. It comes before me now for hearing on exceptions and further directions on the Commissioner's report, pursuant to a decree of the appeal Court, slightly modifying a decree passed by Mr. Justice Madgavkar. I have heard very careful and detailed arguments on the report. The points that have been taken before me can conveniently be put under three heads. They refer to three clauses in the draft scheme placed before the Commissioner by the plaintiffs.2. The first arises out of Clause 5 of the draft scheme which originally ran as follows:-5. His Holiness the Mullaji Saheb of the Dawoodi Bohra Community and his successors in office shall be the sole Amin of the Mosque and shall by virtue of his office have the sole right to manage, control and regulate theconduct of the religious services and prayers to be performed or led thereat, and to appoint an Amil and Khadim therefor, in accordance with the tenets of the Dawoodi Bo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »