Mumbai Court January 1932 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: Dattatraya Govind Haldankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom537; (1932)34BOMLR1156
Kania, J.1. This is an application under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the appointment of the petitioner, the father, as the guardian of the minors and for authorising him to raise a loan on the mortgage of the immoveable property belonging to the joint family in which the minors have either a share or a right to maintenance and marriage expenses. It is alleged in the petition that as a result of the partition effected between two branches of the family on December 22, 1928, the petitioner undertook to pay all the debts of the family therein mentioned. It is further alleged that one of the creditors of the family filed Suit No. 2576 of 1930, and has obtained a decree for Rs. 7,684-12-0 interest and costs against the petitioner and his brother in their personal capacity and also as managers of the joint family. The judgment-creditor has levied an attachment on the immoveable property in question in execution of the decree. It is alleged that some costs are payable by the p...
Emperor Vs. Vithaldas Moolji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR584
John Beaumont Kt., C.J.1 This is an appeal by the accused from an order made by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, on November 20, 1931, whereby he directed that the bond given by the accused should be enforced to the extent specified in the order.2. The material facts are that on August 10 last the accused was convicted of cheating, and a fine of Rs. 1,000 was imposed and the learned Magistrate gave ten days for the payment of the fine. That would make the fine payable by August 20, but for some reason or other everybody seems to have assumed that the date was fixed as August 24, and I will assume that that was the date fixed for the payment of the fine. On the same date as the conviction, viz., August 10, the accused entered into a bond whereby after reciting the sentence upon him to pay a fine he bound himself to appear before the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, at 11-30 on August 24, 1931, and in case ofmaking default therein, he bound himself to forfe...
Emperor Vs. Vasudeo Balwant Gogte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR571
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the verdict of a jury for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment, and against his conviction also under Sections 19(e) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act by the Sessions Judge of Poona sitting with assessors. The sentences passed under the Indian Arms Act were shorter than the sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and as the sentences were to run concurrently, it is not necessary to consider the propriety of the conviction under the Indian Arms Act if the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code stands, This being an appeal from the verdict of a jury, the appellant's case must be limited to points of law, and Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of the accused has adopted a course which follows, Ithink a wise rule of advocacy and one which I wish were adopted more frequently in these Courts, of confining his arg...
Vishnu Sitaram Auchat Vs. Ramchandra Govind Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom466; (1932)34BOMLR849
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the plaint property belonged to his judgment-debtor Vinayak and also prayed for setting aside the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 147 of 1927.2. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the matter was compromised between the parties. In the lower Court it was contended that the defendant was under the influence of opium and did not understand the document on which he had made his signature. The learned Judge disbelieved the statement of the defendant and held that the defendant had no interest in the case and was only a nominee of Vinayak Govind, and that the compromise application was written in consultation with Vinayak with the full agreement of the defendant. He further held that the decree could not be passed in respect of all matters dealt with in the compromise application, but the decree could be passed in terms thereof so far as it related to the suit property, and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›