Mumbai Court July 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.
In Re: Ochhavlal Bhikhabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom447; (1933)35BOMLR985
W. Baker, Acting C.J.1. The petitioners apply for revision of the order passed by the District Magistrate of Kaira setting aside the order of discharge and directing further enquiry against them for offences under Sections 420, 114 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, they having been originally discharged of the same offences by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad.2. The facts are that in the year 1926 there were a largo number of cases of cheating by representing that it is possible to duplicate currency notes, committed in the Kaira, Panch Mahals and other Districts, and it was found that these offences were being committed by a gang of which the present applicants were members. The applicants along with others were committed to the Court of Session at Godhra by the First Class Magistrate of Godhra on a charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and in that charge are set out a number of specific instances of cheating various persons committed by the members of this gang. ...
Narayan Balkrishna Thakurdesai Vs. Vaman Narayan Bhave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom475; (1933)35BOMLR1015; 147Ind.Cas.360
Shingne, J.1. The plaintiffs who are occupancy tenants of the suit lands brought this suit for possession of the lands alleging that the defendant was an annual tenant. The defendant set up permanent tenancy. Both the Courts found against him on the point. The finding is supported by evidence. It was contended that the finding was erroneous at law. I do not think that this contention should be allowed. It is clear from the evidence in the case that the lands had been let in 1864-65 to another tenant. This precludes the defendant from contending that the tenancy was ancient. Another point that was raised on behalf of the defendant (who is a khot of the village) was that the plaintiffs without the consent of the khot had agreed to sell the suit land to one Nilkanth Desai for Rs. 400, and in pursuance of the contract the consideration was paid to the plaintiffs. As to the payment of the consideration the evidence is not convincing, and even assuming that the amount was paid, it is admitte...
Ratanchand Bhalchand Vs. Chandulal J. Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom113(1); (1934)36BOMLR115; 150Ind.Cas.866
Rangnekar, J.1. The question raised on this application is whether the execution of the decree is barred by the law of limitation.2. It is clear on the facts that the application for execution made on June 27, 1932, was barred, unless the decree was kept alive either by an application for execution in accordance with law or by some step-in-aid of execution under Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is clear on the authorities that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of the time occupied between May 1925 and January 15, 1929, in the Phaltan Court, which is a foreign Court, nor can they avail themselves of the execution proceedings pending in that Court to support their contention. 3. The plaintiffs rely, firstly, on the application made to the Sholapur Court on July 8, 1929, for transfer of the decree to Kolhapur and, secondly, on the application for reconstruction of the decree on March 30, 1931, as a step-in-aid of execution. As to the first contention it is clear t...
Rayappa Dharneppa Tikannawar Vs. Dharneppa Dharneppa Tikannawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom13; (1933)35BOMLR1114
N.J. Wadia, J.1. In Civil Application No. 800 of 19S2 the petitioner obtained an order from the High Court directing the opponent to furnish security for costs to the extent of Rs. 1,470. In the ordinary course the First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, was directed to take the security as the opponent was from that district. The order did not expressly state that security was to be furnished to the satisfaction of the lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted one Basappa Shidlingappa Hoskoti as surety on the report of the Mamlatdar of Hubli that Basappa was solvent to the extent of Rs. 1,470. The petitioner Rayappa had made an application to the Mamlatdar objecting to Basappa being accepted as a surety and asking that certain documentary evidence which he wanted to produce in support of his objection should be admitted. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order below this application that he did not see any reason to interfere with the considered opinion of the Mamlatdar ...
Chhaganlal Sakharam Vs. Chunilal Jagmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom189; (1934)36BOMLR277; 152Ind.Cas.267
Tyabji, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether an oral charge in favour of the appellants is to have priority over two mortgages by registered deeds in favour of the respondents.2. The appellants contend that their charge being prior in point of time ought to have priority of effect. The argument before us was that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act refers to charges as distinct from mortgages; that, by reason of Section 9 of the Act, which provides that 'A transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law,' and in the absence of any such provision in regard to a charge as is contained in Section 54 of the Act in regard to sale, in Section 59 in regard to mortgages, in Section 107 in regard to leases, in Section 118 in regard to exchanges, and in Section 123 in regard to gifts,-charges may be created without writing; that if a charge can be created without writing, then Section 17 of the Indian Registration ...
Emperor Vs. Girdhardas Liladhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR981
W. Baker, Acting C.J.1. These two applications are both closely connected, and may be disposed of together. The applicant, who is a partner in a firm, has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court. Bombay, of two offences under the Indian Stamp Act, one under Section 62(1)(b), 'executing or signing otherwise than as a witness any other instrument chargeable with duty without the same being duly stamped', and the ether under Section 65, Clause (a), ' being required under Section 30 to give a receipt, refuses or neglects to give the same;'. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 under each of the two sections in the two cases.2. The facts are simple. The accused's firm were import and export merchants, and they ordered out goods from Europe and other countries for their constituents. In the course of their business a consignment of watch glasses were ordered out for the International Watch Company in July 1929, and in respect of that consignment a receipt, unstamped, wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›