Mumbai Court January 1934 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Bhagchand Jasraj Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom200; (1934)36BOMLR379
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by accused No. 1 against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge of Poona s ting with a jury under Section 373, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1, along with Bapu accused No. 2, was charged in substance with obtaining possession of a girl under eighteen years of age with intent that she should be used for the purpose of illicit intercourse.2. Two questions arise for consideration in this case upon the construction of Section 373. First, what is possession, and, secondly, what amounts to obtaining possession. The learned Sessions Judge in his charge told the jury that it is not necessary in order to constitute the offence that possession of the minor girl should be obtained from a third person; in dealing with what amounts to possession the learned Sessions Judge did not in terms explain to the jury the meaning of the word 'possession' in the section, but he drew their attention to the prosecution evidence, which showed that the girl h...
Tag this Judgment!Revati Mohan Das Vs. Jatindra Mohan Ghosh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR544
George Lowndes, J.1. The appellant in this case is the mortgagee under a mortgage for Rs. 30,000 and interest, dated January 19, 1916, upon an estate known as Taluk Raj Narain Sen. The mortgage was executed by one Raj Mohan Guha, who was then the common manager of the estate, appointed under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. It was duly sanctioned by the local Court, and there is now no dispute as to its validity or as to the amount due under it. The mortgage debt was repayable in January, 1931. Raj Mohan Guha was then dead, and one Harihar Ghosh had been appointed in his place, but the affairs of the estate being involved; he was unable to redeem the security, though he seems to have made some payments on account. He died in September, 1926, and his son, the first respondent, was appointed manager in his place. On December 17 of the same year the appellant instituted a suit on his mortgage in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, claiming the usual relief. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Hormusji K. Bhabha Vs. Nana Appa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom299; (1934)36BOMLR658
Murphy, J.1. The question raised in these two civil revision applications is, whether the appointment in writing required to be given to an advocate to act and plead for a client in the Small Causes Court, requires a revenue stamp of Re. 1 or not, and the answer depends on the further question of, whether such a document is a power-of-attorney, or not.2. The facts on which these applications are based were, that on November 30, 1931, Mr. Hormusji K. Bhabha's advocate, Mr. Sorab B. Dadyburjor, made an application to the Registrar of the Small Causes Court to institute a suit for rent due-Rs. 24-from one of Mr. Bhabha's tenants. The application was in order, except that it was not signed by Mr. Bhabha as it might have been, but by Mr. Dadyburjor purporting to act for him, on the strength of what is called in our Courts a vakalatnama, Which was unstamped.3. It appears that, on November 7, 1931, what is Order III, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, was applied by the High Court to the Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ganpat Subrao Kashyapi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom202; (1934)36BOMLR373
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two applications in revision against the conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sholapur of the accused under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are not in dispute. Three dead bodies were found in the Sholapur District, one of which was the body of a man named Nama, which was found lying on the ground, and another of which was the body of a man named Bandu, which was found hanging on a tree. The other body I need not refer to. These two bodies were sent to the applicant, who was the medical officer employed by the Municipality of Barsi. They were sent by the police for the purpose of post mortem examination. The applicant filled in the ordinary form required by Government to be filled in by medical officers holding postmortem examinations. In the case of Nama the various matters relating to the condition of the internal organs were all dealt with by the applicant stating that the organs were decomposed. In the case of the body o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babu Pandurang Mhaske
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR382
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against their conviction, No. 1 under Sections 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and No. 2 under Sections. 342 and 376 read with Section 114. In admitting the appeal we gave notice to accused No. 1 to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced in the event of the appeal being dismissed, and I desire to say a word or two about the practice which should be adopted where the Court thinks that prima facie the sentence imposed was insufficient. In the case of Emperor v. Mangal Naran (1924) 27 Bom. L. R. 355 the Court expressed the view that where it is thought right to give a notice to enhance the sentence, that notice should not be given until after the appeal has been disposed of. Sir Norman Macleod thought that there was something incongruous in admitting an appeal, and at the same time giving notice to enhance the sentence. I do not myself see any incongruity in adopting that course. In giving notice to enhance the sente...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshvanta BIn Bala Gaekwad Vs. Antu BIn Navaji Salunke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom351; (1934)36BOMLR671
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Baker which involves a point of Hindu law of some importance. The property in suit belonged to one Bala who died leaving a widow Jija and two daughters, Chandra and Ganga, of whom Chandra was married to defendant No. 1. She died in 1915. In 1920 Jija and Ganga, the next reversioner, joined in passing a deed of gift of the property which was the entire estate of Bala in favour of defendant No. 1. In 1926 there was a dispute between defendant No. 1 and Jija and the latter adopted the plaintiff, who subsequently sued to set aside the alienation to defendant No. 1. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court which took the view that the transaction was a valid surrender. In appeal the Assistant Judge reversed this decree. He relied on the case of Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden , in which case at p. 84 their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down the following principles as the result of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Virappa Andandaneppa Manvi Vs. Mahadevappa Basappa Katti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom356; (1934)36BOMLR807; 153Ind.Cas.352
Murphy, J.1. The facts out of which these four appeals arise are prima facie very simple, for the four suits were brought on five promissory notes, the execution of which is admitted by the defendants. These latter, however, pleaded agriculturist status under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and having been found to possess it, the provisions of that Act have been applied.2. Suit No. 21 of 1930 based on a promissory note for Rs. 5,250 was dismissed. This appeal is No. 113 of 1931. The ground of dismissal was that the plaintiffs had not proved consideration.3. Suit No. 29 of 1930 on a promissory note for Rs. 5,000 was decreed. The defence was satisfaction. The appeal is No. 199 of 1931.4. Suit No. 28 of 1930 on a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 and one for Rs. 850 was decreed. The defence was satisfaction. It is appeal No. 178 of 1931.5. Suit No. 32 of 1930 on a promissory note for Rs. 6,000 was decreed. The appeal is No. 170 of 1931. These last two appeals involve in each case a s...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Rupchand Vs. Mohanlal Sakarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom16; (1934)36BOMLR1041; 155Ind.Cas.564
Broomfield, J.1. The first of these appeals is against the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Surat decreeing the respondent's suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a house in Gopipoora Surat. The second appeal is a companion appeal from the decree of the same Subordinate Judge dismissing the appellant's suit for return of the earnest money paid by him in respect of the contract. The agreement of sale took place on February 26, 1927, and is exhibit 28. It contains an averment that the house is of the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. It states that Rs. 500 had been paid by the purchaser as deposit or earnest money and provides that the balance was to be paid on delivery of possession of the house and execution of a conveyance. On April 5, 1927, the plaintiff sent the defendant a notice calling upon him to complete the sale. On April 19, 1927, defendant replied demanding inspection of the title-deeds. Inspection was given in the office of defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. C.S. Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR369
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which the applicant asks us to review his conviction under by-law No. 27 of the bye-laws made under the Bombay Tramways Act (Bom. I of 1874) for breach of the transfer regulation No. 10 made under the Act. The learned officiating Chief Presidency Magistrate convicted the accused and imposed a fine of Rs. 10.2. The facts are that on the day in question the applicant boarded a tram at Flora Fountain and took a ticket for Bhendi Bazar. The ticket required him to change trams at Bori Bunder, and this he did, but instead of taking a tram proceeding along the Hornby Road direct to Bhendi Bazar he took a tram proceeding along the Cruikshank Road to Dhobi Talao and then along Kalbadevi Road to Bhendi Bazar, the result being, in effect, that he travelled over two sides of a triangle instead of over one. The conductor of the tram into which the applicant changed at Bori Bunder, on examining his ticket, told him that he was in a wrong tr...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. the Rameshvaram Devasthanam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR539
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from the concurrent judgments of a bench of the Madras High Court modifying, on second appeal, the decree of the lower appellate Court which had dismissed the suit, and giving the plaintiff a decree for the principal relief claimed in the plaint. The question is mainly one of fact, and it is well settled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, however erroneous, unless they are vitiated by some error of law. Subsequently to the date of the judgments under appeal, the Board has had occasion to emphasize the fact that this rule is equally applicable to cases, such as this, in which the findings of the lower appellate Court are based on inferences drawn from the documents exhibited in evidence. This question is dealt with in the third and fourth propositions laid down in the judgment delivered by Sir Binod Mitter in Wali Mohammad v. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »