Mumbai Court December 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.
Emperor Vs. H.Z. Salve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom233; (1934)36BOMLR384
Kania, J.1. The witness, Sub-Inspector Sorabji, states that when he questioned accused No. 2 on September 21 at about twelve noon, she told him about the knife. When questioned as to what were the exact words, so far as he remembered, which were told to him by accused No. 2, he wrote them down from memory. According to him, Shevantibai told him and the other police-officers that the knife, with which the throat was cut, was washed and kept on a paniara of the mori in the kitchen. The learned Advocate General contends that as this is one statement made by accused No. 2, and it is in consequence of that statement that the knife (Exh. Z/8) was ultimately traced in the kitchen by the police-officers, the whole statement is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he relies on the decisions in Lalji Dusadh v. King-Emperor I.L.R. (1927) Pat. 747 In re Sogaimuthu Padayachi (1925) 27 Cr.L.J. 394 Queen-Empress v. Nana I.L.R. (1889) Bom. 260 and Emper...
In Re: A.B. Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom193; (1934)36BOMLR324
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application which raises a short point under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. A man named Ramchandra was arrested on August 17, 1932. He afterwards absconded and was re-arrested on September 22, and there was then in his possession a sum of Rs. 512 partly in notes and partly in coins, which was taken possession of by the police under Section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was duly committed for trial, and on April 7, 1933, he engaged the present petitioner as his pleader to defend him, and on April 12 he gave a written request to Government to pay a sum of Rs. 406 out of the Rs. 512 which had been found on his person to his pleader. That application was refused. Subsequently the accused was convicted. There was no evidence before the Court that the sum of Rs. 512 was stolen property. In passing sentence the trial Court imposed a fine of Rs. 500 on the accused person and then the Judge added:I do not impose any punishment...
Hanmantappa Ramappa Ilagar Vs. Dundappa BIn Fakirappa Huilgol
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom234; (1934)36BOMLR474
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a half share in two fields at Gadag, which were sold on June 24, 1913, by Dharmappa, defendant No. 10 in the suit, to defendant No. 1. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 5,000. These two fields formed part of the estate of Bhimappa (father of Dharmappa and of Ramaswami defendant No. 9), who died at the end of 1912 or early in 1913. On his death Dharmappa became the manager of the joint family, and between that time and the end of 1916 he disposed of all the family properties, so that now there is none left. Ramaswami the younger brother was a minor. He appears to have come of age in 1919, and on November 13, 1922, he sold his undivided half share in the two fields to the plaintiff, who filed the suit, from which this appeal arises, on June 9, 1925. The plaint was presented first in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge but was returned on November 3, 1925, on the ground that the value of ...
Jagannath Vs. Sri Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR416
John Wallis, J.1. This is a suit of the usual character to set aside a sale of joint family property by one Mathura Prasad, from whom the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are descended, as shown in the following pedigree:Mathura Prasad (died 1918).:_____________________________________________________________: : :Basdeo Sidh Narain Ram Pratap (deft. No. 4)(died 1895). (died 1919). (died 1931): : :: : 3 sons (pltfs. 9, 10 and 11).: :: ______________________ : : :: Batuk Raghu Nath: (pltf. No. 7). (pltf. No. 8).:_____________________________________________________________________: : :Bisheshar Nath Bhairon Nath Shri Nath (died 1905). (dft. No. 5). (pltf. No. 1).: :_____________________________________ __________________ : : : : :Jagtamba Ramanand Satdeo Gayetri Suba LalPrasad (pltf. No. 3). (pltf. No. 4). Prasad (pltf. No. 6).(pltf. No. 2). (pltf. No. 5).2. It was alleged in the plaint that Jagannath, the first defendant, had induced Mathura Prasad, who was blind and deaf and a ve...
Musammat Allah Rakhi Vs. Shah Mohammad Abdur Rahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR408
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants, and the representatives of defendants who have died since the institution of the suit, against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1930, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, confirming the decree of the First Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur dated January 19, 1927.2. The question which falls for determination in the appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit to recover possession of certain lands from the defendants is barred by limitation.3. Both the Courts in India held that, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the suit was not barred.4. The result was that the Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit, and the defendants' appeal there from to the High Court was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff's case is that-The entire village Piran Kalliar Sharif, pargana and tahsil Rurki, district Saharanpur, has been made waqf of generation after generation and womb after womb from the...
Bhup NaraIn Singh Vs. Gokhul Chanda Mahton
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR421
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for a sale of certain immovable properties, appeals against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated June 12, 1930, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, dated March 31, 1928, and dismissed the suit.2. In the suit, which was filed on January 27, 1927, the appellant seeks specific performance of an agreement dated November 26, 1926, under which he alleges that defendant No. 1 (now respondent No. 2), as karta of his joint family, which consisted of himself and his two sons, defendant No. 2 (now represented by respondents Nos. 2 and 4) and defendant No. 3 (now respondent No. 4), agreed to sell to him certain property of the joint family at the price of Rs. 13,000. The present respondent No. 1, who was impleaded as defendant No. 4, claimed the property in suit by virtue of a registered sale-deed, dated December 22, 1926, by d...
Karapaya Servai Vs. Mayandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR394
George Lowndes, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is as to the respondent's right to share in the estate of one Karapaya Servai, a Madrasi Hindu, who seems to have acquired a considerable fortune in Burma. He died a lunatic in 1923. The respondent is the son of Karapayi (or Karupi), who is now admitted to have been the first wife of Karapaya, and the defence to his claim is a denial of his paternity. The appellants are two minor sons of Karapaya by his second wife, Nachiamma, and one Chellaya, a brother of Nachiamma, who had been appointed guardian in the lunacy, and was at the date of the suit in effective possession of the estate.2. The suit was instituted by the respondent in the District Court of Pyapon, and the main issue formulated for decision was, 'Is the plaintiff the son of the deceased lunatic Karapaya, begotten in lawful wedlock with Karapayi?' The District Judge answered this question in the negative and dismissed the suit. The High Court on appeal took th...
The Bharat Insurance Co. Limited Vs. the Income-tax Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR401
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore on a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the question whether the appellant, the Bharat Insurance Company, was liable to be assessed under that Act to income-tax in respect of the profits allotted to participating policy-holders who were entitled under their contract to ninety per cent. of the profits made in the participating branch of the business.2. The Bharat Insurance Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in 1882, for the purpose of making and effecting assurances on lives and carrying on other insurance business.3. Under the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Indian Life Assurance Act, 1912, the company's life assurance business has to be kept entirely separate from its other businesses, if any, and under Section 8(1) it is obliged to have a quinquennial valuation made by an actuary and ...
Noshirwan Manekshaw Nanavati Vs. Sharoshbanu Noshirwan Nanavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom311; (1934)36BOMLR668
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a petition by a husband against his wife under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of their minor son who is nearly six years of age. The petitioner was married to the respondent in or about February, 1927, and the minor was born on January 24, 1928. The petitioner alleges in paragraph 7 of the petition that the minor has been removed from his custody, and that he has been deprived of the custody of his child by the respondent. A preliminary point was taken by counsel for the respondent that this application by way of petition was not competent to the petitioner, and that his proper remedy, if any, was by means of a substantive suit. Counsel contended that Section 25 of the Act had no application to the facts of this case, for the minor had neither left nor been removed from the custody of the petitioner as the guardian of his person; in fact, ever since his birth, the minor and his mother have been living in the house of the minor's mater...
In Re: Alexander George Gray
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom183; (1934)36BOMLR320
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in which he held that he had no power to take cognizance of an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, since consent in writing had not been obtained under Section 196A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint was originally presented to the Officiating Chief Presidency Magistrate on September 2, 1933. He made an order that summons should be issued against the three accused under Sections 421, 422 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently the complaint came before the Chief Presidency Magistrate after his return to duty, and he held that he had no power to take cognizance of the complaint under Section 120B. Two points were raised before him, first that the officiating Chief Presidency Magistrate had no power under Section 196A of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant the consent, and, alternatively, that, if he had the power, he had not, in fact, given th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »