Mumbai Court October 1934 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Morarji Jivraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1213
Sen, J.1. The facts out of which the present application arises are as follows. Opponent No. 1, who is the widow of one Narsi Sawal, was the complainant against the petitioner and opponent No. 2 whom she charged with criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof and using a forged share-transfer form in respect of ten ordinary shares of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. belonging to her, under Sections 406 and 471, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was tried in the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, who issued process and summons for the production of account books relating to the alleged transaction, and he fixed the case for hearing on July 3, 1934. On July 2, 1934, opponent No. 1 applied for a reference of the case to the Criminal Investigation Department under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That application was rejected on the ground, apparently, that the Court had no jurisdiction, having once ordered process to issue. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nana Amrita Savant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom70; (1934)36BOMLR1211
Murphy, J.1. This is an application by the Government of Bombay against an order made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate committing an approver, Nana Amrita Savant, who had accepted a pardon tendered him by the same Magistrate, to stand his trial in the Sessions Court on charges under Sections 120B, 467, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. We asked for a report from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and his commitment of the approver as well as the other accused in the case appears to have been deliberate, for his view is that Section 337, as amended by Act XVIII of 1923, now enables the Sessions Court to deal with an approver, in case he does not comply with the conditions of his pardon and forfeits it, without a fresh enquiry and commitment by a Magistrate.2. We think that this was not the intention of the amendment. The section now reads:In every case where a person has accepted a tender of pardon and has been? examined under Sub-section (2), the Magistrate before whom the proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Dhoribhai Dadabhai Patel Vs. Pragdasji Bhagwandasji Mahant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom172; (1935)37BOMLR120; 157Ind.Cas.1086
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application which raises the question whether the transfer of a suit made by the District Judge of Kaira to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Nadiad is valid.2. The suit in question was instituted in 1928, and it is a suit relating to a scheme for a charity, a class of suits which falls within Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was instituted in the District Court of Kaira, the subject-matter of the suit arising in the village of Sarsa which is within the Kaira District. The claim was valued at Rs. 20. Issues were framed, and on July 28, 1933, the District Judge transferred the suit to the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, and the question is whether that transfer is legal.3. Now, Section 92 provides that in cases falling within that section, a person may on the conditions specified institute a suit for specified relief in the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction, or in any other Court empow...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›