Mumbai Court November 1932 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ahmed Hasham
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR240
Murphy, J.1. The appellant has been convicted, firstly, under Section 158, and secondly, under Sections 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 for the first offence, and to one day's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 or in default three months further rigorous imprisonment for the second offence.2. The facts the prosecution set out to prove are, firstly, that he provoked a riot, and secondly, that he abetted the commission of mischief by a riotous crowd, by inciting it to commit this offence. It is obvious that Section 114 is a mistake, and that it should be Section 109. Section 114 applies where a criminal first abets an offence to be committed by another person, and is subsequently present at its commission. Active abetment at the time of committing the offence is covered by Section 109, and Section 114 is clearly intended for an abetment previous to the actual commission of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sabava Yellappa Vs. Yamanappa Sabu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom209; (1933)35BOMLR345
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain lands conveyed to defendant No. 1 by Sabu, the adoptive father of the plaintiff, under a sale-deed, Exhibit 85, dated September 21, 1903, and the other lands in suit conveyed by Sabu and his wife, defendant No. 6, by a deed of gift, Ex. 55, on June 26, 1917. The plaintiff was adopted in June 1919 by defendant No. 6, the widow of Sabu who died in September 1917. Out of the lands which were given in gift by Exhibit 55, survey number 181 was alienated by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5, her Mukhtyar, in 1918, who in his turn sold it to defendant No. 2 in May 1921. Survey No. 336, one of the lands given in gift, was sold by defendant No. 1 to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in September 1918.2. The case of the plaintiff was that the sale transaction of 1903 was illegal and void, because defendant No. 1 was the mistress of Sabu, and though the ostensible consideration was cash, the real consideration was ille...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Rao Dani Vs. Rambharosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR230
George Lowndes, J.1. The appellant and the second respondent are the reversionary heirs of Baboo Rao Dani who died on November 6, 1918, leaving him surviving his widow, Anandabai, and no issue. Anandabai died on November 21, 1924, and on April 7, 1926, the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the reversioners claiming his estate. The defendant to the suit, the first respondent before the Board, denied their right, alleging title in himself as the duly adopted son of Baboo Rao Dani. The factum of his adoption by Anandabai on April 25, 1920, is not seriously disputed. The issue between the parties is as to its validity in law. The family was found by the trial Judge and was admitted in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner to be governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law, under which a widow has in herself power to adopt, subject only to such restriction, if any, as may have been imposed upon her by her husband. The appellant's contention in the present case is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas Sunderlal Rathi Vs. Tejmal Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1162
Mirza, J.1. On October 14, 1931, a decree was made in the above suit in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 6,590-11-0 with interest at six per cent, per annum from October 14, 1931, till payment and the costs of the suit. By a deed of transfer dated February 29, 1932, the plaintiffs assigned to the applicant their right, title and interest under the decree in respect of Rs. 6,590-11-0 and interest without assigning to the applicant the plaintiffs' further right, title and interest under the decree in respect of the payment of costs when taxed. The applicant has now applied under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling upon the plaintiffs and the defendants to show cause, if any, they have, why the decree dated October 14 1931, in favour of the plaintiffs and transfered by them to the applicant should not be executed by the applicant against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contend that the decree which has been assigned cannot be e...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Das Sunderlal Rathi Vs. Tejmal Mohanlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1932
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.1119
Mirza, J.1. On October 14, 1931, a decree was made in the above suit in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 6,590-11-0 with interest at six per cent, per annum from October 14, 1931, till payment and the costs of the suit. By a deed of transfer dated February 29, 1932, the plaintiffs assigned to the applicant their right, title and interest under the decree in respect of Rs. 6,590-11-0 and interest without assigning to the applicant the plaintiffs further right title and interest under the decree in respect of the payment of costs when taxed. The applicant has now applied under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the plaintiffs and the defendants to show cause, if any they have why the decree dated October 14, 1931, in favour of the plaintiffs and transferred by them to the applicant should not be executed by the applicant against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contend that the decree which has been assigned cannot be execu...
Tag this Judgment!Currimbhoy and Company Vs. L.A. Creet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR223
Thankerton, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High. Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated August 23, 1929, varying a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated October 12, 1928.2. On May 14, 1924, the present suit was instituted by L.A.. Greet against Oosman Jamall & Sons, Limited, for khas possession of certain 'coal mining lands in Mouza Khandra, for an account of the coal extracted therefrom by Jamalls, and for damages for breach of contract. In the alternative a somewhat unusual decree for specific performance was asked for.3. In June, 1926, Jamalls went into compulsory liquidation, and on July 17, 1926, the liquidator was added as defendant No. 2 ; on October 2, 1926, the liquidator filed a written statement adopting the written statement filed by Jamalls.4. On July 28, 1927, Currimbhoy & Company, Limited, were added as defendant No. 3, as a party claiming to be interested in the lands in suit under an agreement with Jama...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand Vadilal Vs. Mithabhoy and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom202; (1933)35BOMLR287
Patkar, J.1. In this case plaintiff filed a suit in the Presidency Court of Small Causes at Bombay to recover the customs duty and other charges paid by him in respect oil certain cases of piece-goods which arrived in Bombay. In April 1929 the plaintiff indented for nine cases of piece-goods from the defendants' firm. The plaintiff's contention was that the goods were not of the same quality and colour, and two arbitrators were appointed to decide if the cases were of the contract colour and shade. In April 1930 the arbitrators agreed in their decision that the goods were not of the contract colour or shade. They, however, differed on another point. Subsequently the plaintiff cancelled the contract and refused to take delivery. The defendants made an application to the High Court to have an umpire appointed, and in August 1930 Wadia J. refused the application on the ground that only one point was referred to the arbitrators, namely, the quality of the goods, and the arbitrators had agr...
Tag this Judgment!Sundrabai Sitaram Narangikar Vs. Manohar Dhondu Khandalgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom262; (1933)35BOMLR404
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for setting aside a sale, dated April 22, 1925, executed by his grandmother in favour of the defendant and for possession of such part of the property as may be found in her possession. The defendant is the sister of the plaintiff's father, and she defended the suit on the ground that the property, the subject-matter of the sale-deed, belonged to her mother who had sold it to her. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased by his father benami in the name of his mother, i. e., the plaintiff's grandmother, in 1901, as he was a Government servant. It appears that the plaintiff's father was a police constable, and whilst in service he purchased this property benami in the name of his mother. This was denied by the defendant, who contended that the property belonged to the mother and was purchased by her with her own moneys. The trial Court found that the property was purchased by the plaintiff's father b...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulabchand Hirachand Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR185
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by one Gulabchand Hirachand Doshi who was convicted on April 11, 1932, by the First Class City Magistrate of Sholapur for disobeying an order made under Section 4 of the Emergency Powers Ordinance, the conviction being under Section 21 of that Ordinance. He was sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge of Sholapur reduced the fine to Rs. 12,000, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.2. The accused was arrested under an order of the District Magistrate of Sholapur on January 6, 1932, and was sent to Bijapur jail. On February 25, an order was made, to the terms of which I will refer more particularly presently, but the general effect of the order, so far as is material, was that the accused should, within eighteen hours from leaving custody, report himself to the Police Sub-Inspector at Karmala, and thereafter should not leave the limits of Karmala, an...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam NaraIn Singh Vs. Suraj NaraIn Pandey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR301
Macmillan, J.1. Their Lordships have not found it necessary in this appeal to call upon counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the appellant has very properly accepted the position that the burden lies upon him to establish upon the evidence that the mortgage on which this suit was founded was tainted with immorality in this sense, that it was effected for the purpose of raising money to defray debts incurred by the mortgagor for immoral purposes. The learned Judge of the Subordinate Court decided the case in favour of Mr. Subba Row's client but in doing so he states that ho does not find the evidence sufficient, to connect the particular cases of expenditure directly with the acts of immorality alleged. He adds, however, that it was said for the defence that 'they have succeeded in showing that defendant No. 1 was leading a licentious life and living beyond his means and there being nothing to show that there was any business on which the loans in question could have been expended, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »