Mumbai Court October 1933 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.
Bhaiji Manor Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.268
Broomfield, J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference areas follows. Four accused persons have been-committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Kaira by the Resident First Class Magistrate of Borsad for trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The offence is alleged to have been committed within the, limits of a village in the territory of the Baroda State. Therefore, a certificate from the Political Agent was necessary under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code before an inquiry into the charge could be made in British India. What purported to be a certificate under Section 188 was produced in the proceeding before the Magistrate and was in this form:Dated Baroda, April 22,1933. Whereas the persons named in the margin are1. Ram Manor | charged with having2. Bhaiji Manor. committed an offence3. Asha Rama. punishable under Section 302 4. Natha Mathur. of the Indian I'enalAll of Vadeli under Borsad. | Code at Baroda under Bhadran of the Baroda State in the month of Januar...
Dharma Raghunath Desai Vs. Keshav Gunajee Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom219; (1934)36BOMLR339
Baker, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Shingne, sitting singly, in a suit brought by the plaintiff, to recover by partition a moiety of the plaint property with mesne profits and costs. The Subordinate Judge of Vengurla awarded the plaintiff's claim, and on appeal, this decision was confirmed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ratnagiri with appellate powers. There was a second appeal against that decision, which was confirmed by Mr. Justice Shingne, and there is now a Letters Patent appeal against his decision.2. The facts are simple. There were certain sheri lands in the Malvan taluka which were let out by Government on lease for thirty years. The lands in suit were in the possession of the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The present defendant No. 1 is the appellant. Although the lease was in the name of Anant, a member of another branch of the family, it is now quite clear that the actual lessee was the father of defendants Nos. 1 and...
Pestonji Jalbhoy Chichgar Vs. Jalbhoy Jehangir Chichgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom64; (1934)36BOMLR42; 150Ind.Cas.474
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This summons raises a question as to the construction of Section 8 of the Indian Trusts Act, a question on which there appears to be very little authority. The summons was taken out by the husband of one Gulbai against the executors of her will and her children, and the question raised is whether a trust declared by her will is a trust of a mere beneficial interest, and as such rendered invalid by Section 8 of the Indian Trusts Act.2. The title to the alleged beneficial interest of Gulbai arose under a will dated March 27, 1899, of Ardeshir Maneckji Kaka who died on June 18, 1899. By Clause 6 of his will he gave eighty-five shares of the Bank of Bombay upon trust to his trustees with directions that they should either retain the shares or sell them and invest the proceeds and stand possessed of the shares or the proceeds of sale upon certain trusts during the lifetime of a daughter named Aimai and after her death or the marriage of certain other daughters he ...
Kaluram Bholaram Vs. Chimniram Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom86; (1934)36BOMLR68; 150Ind.Cas.467
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This suit started as long ago as 1920. It was a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who claimed a sum of about Rs. 79,000 odd, as being due to them by the defendants, for acting as commission agents to the defendants to buy and sell piece-goods.2. The defendants in their written statement alleged that no proper accounts had been delivered, that the plaintiffs had committed various breaches of duty as agents, and the defendants said that they would pay what was due, but that the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was not due.3. In 1924 the matter was referred to the Commissioner for taking Accounts to take an account of the dealings and transactions between the parties. The matter proceeded before the Commissioner, or rather before three different Commissioners, for a period of five years ; and on June 22, 1929, the Commissioner made his report. On July 11, 1929, the plaintiffs took out exceptions to that report; and on September 27, 1932, the learned Judge made his...
Chhaganlal Shivlal Vs. Bonderbai Rupchand Lohar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom186; (1934)36BOMLR334
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia dismissing the plaintiff's suit, on two promissory notes, passed by the defendant, on the ground that they are time barred. The only question in this appeal is whether the purshis given by the plaintiff's pleader in the previous suit No. 482 of 1923, filed by the present defendant against the present plaintiff, operates as an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to save limitation.2. The facts are simple. The promissory notes which were passed or alleged to have been passed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff are dated, March 17, 1921, and January 6, 1922. The suit is brought on January 19, 1926, and would, therefore, be barred by limitation. But it appears that in a previous suit for accounts by the present defendant against the plaintiff, which is suit No. 482 of 1923, the plaintiff put in an application, Exh. 19 in this suit, saying that as it was not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›