Mumbai Court August 1932 Judgments
Sharanbasappa Tippanna Vs. Rachappa Basappa Shettar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom101; (1933)35BOMLR68
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 3,714 on a promissory note passed to him by defendant No. 1 on January 23, 1925, on the allegation that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 lived in union and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were partners of defendant No. 1, and that the promissory note was passed by defendant No. 1 as a partner and manager of the partnership shop.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that defendant No. 3 was a partner of defendant No. 1's firm and that the promissory note was not passed for the partnership business as manager of the firm, and that the debt under the suit promissory note was not binding on defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The findings were arrived at on the ground that the suit was based on the promissory note and not based on the debt independently of the promissory note. He, therefore, held that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not liable on the promissory note signed by defendant No. 1, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Allisab Rajesab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1453
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are five appeals by five accused against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Dharwar, for dacoity. The accused have not appeared on the appeal, but with the assistance of the learned Government Pleader we have been through the evidence, and the case raises a question of principle which is discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment. The evidence against all the accused consisted, in the first place, of the evidence of an approver, and of accused No. 1 who pleaded guilty, was convicted, and sentenced, and then put into the witness box, Those two persons are obviously accomplices. The question of principle which arises is whether their evidence can be safely accepted without any corroboration. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed Section 133, and Section 114, ill (b), of the Indian Evidence Act, and various authorities, and he comes to the conclusion that he can in this case act on the uncorroborated evidence of the accomplices. He poi...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Shamrao Laud Vs. Dwarkadas Kalliandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom342; (1933)35BOMLR700
Wadia, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the defendants for the appointment of the Court Receiver as the administrator pendente lite and receiver of all the moveable and immoveable properties belonging to the estate left at the death of Pultibai, widow of Runchhoddas Tribhowandas Mody, and of the claims and documents referred to in prayer (1) of the notice of motion, and also for an injunction against the plaintiffs in terms of prayer (2) thereof. Putlibai died in Bombay on April 25, 1932, leaving a will dated August 30, 1931, of which the plaintiffs are the executors. Plaintiffs have filed their petition for probate of the said will. Putlibai died childless, and the defendants would be some of her heirs as on an intestacy, and are also the reversionary heirs of her deceased husband. They filed a caveat and have made an affidavit in support thereof with the result that the petition has been turned into a testamentary suit. Defendants allege that the will was obtained by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vallibhai Ibrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1447
Jhon Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which the accused persons ask us to set aside their convictions under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act No. IV of 1887. The learned Magistrate held that the burden was upon the accused to prove their innocence, relying upon the presumption against the accused which is raised by Section 7 of the Act. Now the learned Magistrate was quite right in raising that presumption if the premises of the accused had been searched under a warrant lawfully issued under Section 6 of the Act, but the presumption under Section 7 does not arise unless there has been a proper search warrant under Section 6. It is said that the warrant of search purported to be issued in this ease under Section 6 is invalid on two grounds. In the first place it is said that the warrant, although it states that a complaint on oath has been made, does not state that the Assistant Superintendent of Police who issued the warrant had reason to suspect that the...
Tag this Judgment!Nathmal Motiram Marwadi Vs. Nilkanth Vishnu Kavishwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom25; (1932)34BOMLR1519
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik. We have heard an elaborate argument, but really the point involved is in a very small compass. It is not necessary to state in detail how the position of the parties arises. It is sufficient to state what that position is. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the principal respondents on the appeal, acquired certain first mortgages from the mortgagor, who is defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs acquired subsequent mortgages. There were also mortgages subsequent to the plaintiffs' with which we are not concerned. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as firstmortgages brought a suit to enforce their mortgage, and in that suit they acquired the property. But they omitted to make the plaintiff's or their predecessors-in-title parties, and, therefore, the plaintiffs' rights under their subsequent mortgages were in no way affected by the sale of the property to the firstmortgages. The plaintiffs' ri...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Krishna Khasbag Vs. Bhujaballi Annappa Gargatti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom97; (1933)35BOMLR60
Patkar, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a landlord can redeem a mortgage effected by his permanent tenant who dies without leaving any heirs. The point does not appear to have been covered by authority. The land in suit belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather, Ramji, from whom one More took it on a lease in the year 1863. The land was given to Moro for building a house on the site and Moro agreed to pay an annual rent of Rs. 4-8, The lease embodied the conditions that so long as the house stood on the site, Moro 'his bhaubands or such others as there may be' will continue to pay the rent according to the agreement, and in case the shop or the house were to be sold, it was not to bo sold without informing the landlord, and in case a sale was made, a quarter of the proceeds would bo payable to the landlord.2. In 1875 Moro's widow mortgaged the property in favour of the predecessors of defendants Nos. 1. to 3. The tenant died without leaving any heirs, and the present suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!The District Local Board of Poona Vs. Vishnu Raghoba Waderkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom164; (1933)35BOMLR55
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the plantiff sued to recover Rs. 1,777-8-0 as damages from the District Local Board of Poona, for breach of a contract entered into on February 8, 1926, with the District Local Board to construct a building at Junnar for the use of the office of the Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was barred under Section 136 of the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923, Bom. Act VI of 1923, which runs as follows :-No suit shall be commenced against any local board, or against any officer or servant of a local board, or any person acting under the orders of a local board, for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, without giving to such local board, officer, servant, or person one month's previous notice in writing of the intended action and of the cause thereof, nor after three mouths from the date of the act complained of.2. The suit was tiled more than three mouths after the accrual of the alleged cause o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Keshavdas Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom106; (1933)35BOMLR105
Wadia, J.1. [After stating the facts his Lordship preceded:] The only question that arises on the summons is as to what was exactly meant by the Court by the words 'the costs of this suit.' It has been argued by counsel for defendant No. 1 that the costs of the suit which his client was made to pay to the plaintiffs did not include the costs of the general action, in so far as they had been increased by reason of impleading defendant No. 2 in the suit. The matter came on before the Assistant Taxing Master for review, and he gave his judgment dated June 20, 1932, which is annexed to his certificate. Reference is made in that judgment to Kelly's Directories, Limited v. Gavin and Lloyds [1901] 2 Ch. 763. In that suit it was held that where one of two defendants was ordered to pay the plaintiffs ' their costs of this action,' the costs were to include all the plaintiffs' costs of action, including the costs in respect of the other defendant against whom no relief was obtained. The words in...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji, Kt. Vs. Gunpa Khandu Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom338; (1933)35BOMLR694
Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 1,225 which he had to pay in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the award of the Commissioner dated July 22, 1931. Plaintiff is the sole contractor in Bombay for the coaling of the steamers of the British India Steam Navigation Company, Limited, and does business in the name of Bomanji Dhunjibhoy. In June 1931 the plaintiff had to supply 200 tons of coal to the SS. Hatkhola then lying in the Victoria Dock, Bombay. It is his case that he gave a sub-contract for the purpose to the defendants who are muccadums at the rate of Re. 1 per ton, and that they in turn engaged several workmen on June 11, 1931, one of whom, named Maruti Bala, fell down from the stage on which he was standing at about 9 in the morning by reason of one of the ropes breaking, and sustained fatal injuries of which he died in hospital two days later. On July 8, 1931, his widow filed an application in the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›