Mumbai Court November 1934 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Govind Hari Prabhu Mirashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom157; (1935)37BOMLR106
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the, district Judge of Ratnagiri by which he directed that the appellant should be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193 or Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant facts are that an application to sanction such a prosecution by the ,! Subordinate Judge in or in relation to whose Court the alleged offence had been committed was made under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and was rejected by the Subordinate Judge, who considered that there was no sufficient cause to direct a prosecution. Then there was an appeal to the District Judge under Section 476B of the Code, and the learned District Judge took the view that there was a prima facie case against the present appellant for proceeding under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, and he, therefore, set aside the lower Court's order, and directed that a complaint against the present appellant be lodged. From that order this appeal is brought, and a p...
Tag this Judgment!Kalekhan Mahmadkhan Vs. Karim Rehman Malik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom207; (1935)37BOMLR207
Broomfield, J.1. The question for decision is whether the District Judge has power to impose a fine under Section 10 of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, XLII of 1923. The section is silent as to the tribunal by which the penalties therein referred to are to be imposed. It merely says that any person who does certain things is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500, or in the case of a second subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000. In the present case the District Judge after holding an inquiry under the Act and finding the present applicant guilty of furnishing false accounts has imposed a fine of Rs. 50. The applicant comes to this Court in revision, and the argument put forward on his behalf is that the offences referred to in Section 10 can only be tried by a Magistrate and not by the District Judge.2. For this proposition reliance is mainly placed on a decision of the Judicial Commissioners' Court in Sind, Ali Mahomed v. Emperor I.L.R(1932) All. 475...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhardas Jankidas Bairagi Vs. Keshav Govind Bargandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom321; (1935)37BOMLR235; 159Ind.Cas.209
Broomfield, J.1. There is a common question in these two appeals, viz., whether rooms appurtenant to a temple which are used for residential purposes and let to tenants are exempt from municipal taxation on the ground that the income is used for religious purposes connected with the temple.2. The appellant is the manager of a temple of Balaram at Jalgaon to which there are attached twelve rooms, one occupied by the manager himself and the others by tenants who pay rent for them. It is an admitted fact that the income derived from these rents is used for the purposes of the temple. The Jalgaon Municipality has for some time past been levying house-tax on the rooms and the tax has been paid. But in 1927-28 the amount of the tax was increased and the manager appealed against the assessment under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII of 1925. The Magistrate who tried the case decided that, as the rent of the rooms is exclusively used for religious purposes, the Municipali...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Visram Valji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR102
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are applications in revision in which the applicant applies against his conviction by the Special Magistrate, First Class, Broach, under Section 96 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (XVIII of 1925). He was convicted in twelve different cases and fined Rs. 50 in respect of each conviction. In ten of the cases the convictions were upheld by the Sessions Judge and in the other two cases the Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court as he thought that the convictions were not justified.2. The Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, in Section 61 gives power to a Municipality to make bye-laws. Then by Section 73, Sub-section (5), a Municipality may impose a terminal tax on goods imported into or exported from the terminal tax limits. Then Section 95 provides that an officer demanding octroi by the authority -of the Municipality shall tender to every person introducing or receiving anything on which the tax is claimed, a bill specifying the animal or ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lakshman Bala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR176
Divatia, J.1. The accused in this case is charged under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, with the offence of kidnapping a girl under sixteen years of age from the lawful guardianship of her father in order that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse. In the alternative, he is charged with the simple offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363, Indian Penal Code.2. It is common ground-and it is admitted by the girl-that she used to have illicit intercourse with the accused before the alleged offence took place, and it is contended on behalf of the defence that the term ' seduce' in Section 366, Indian Penal Code, applies only to the first act of seduction, that is, inducing a woman to surrender her chastity for the first time, and that, therefore, where, as in the present case, a minor girl had illicit intercourse with the accused before the alleged kidnapping took place, there is no offence under that section, although the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram NaraIn Chaudhury Vs. Musammat Pan Kuer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR144
Thankerton, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from four decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated January 30, 1929, which reversed two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, dated February 26, 1927.2. The original appellant, Ram Narain Chaudry, was plaintiff in the two suits in which these decrees were made and which were instituted by him in 1924, but he has recently died and the present appellants are his personal representatives. The main question, which is common to both suits, is whether the original appellant was entitled to succeed to the whole estate of Ram Kishore Chaudry, who died on July 27, 1917, or otherwise to one-half thereof.3. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties concerned :- Gayanandan | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Dubri Bidhi Chand | Fateh | (died Mar., 1895) Lila Chand | | Chand | | | | | | | | | Tikan ------------------------- | | | | | Murat Narain Govind Prasad | Lal Narai...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapsing Moholalbhai Seth Vs. Keshavlal Harilal Setalvad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR315
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad who had given judgment for the plaintiffs. The suit was brought on a surety bond given by the defendants guaranteeing a loan on mortgage, which the plaintiffs had lent to one Desai Krishnalal Narsinhlal whose wife was a sister of the respondents. The defence was that the sureties had been released by the subsequent dealings between the creditors and the principal debtor. It appears that before the mortgage in question was executed the principal debtor, a pleader in Ahmedabad, had given mortgages over four different parts of his immoveable property to various creditors to secure loans which were then outstanding. The transaction with the creditors, who appear to be administrators of a charitable fund, was in the nature of a consolidation mortgage whereby Krishnalal was to borrow Rs. 1,25,000 which was to be applied in redeeming the four properties, the l...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipality of Ahmedabad Vs. Panubhai Laljibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom355; (1935)37BOMLR468; 158Ind.Cas.31
Rangnekar, J.1. The Ahmedabad Municipality served the plaintiff with a notice under Sections 96 (5) and 91 (4), (13), of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, calling upon him to remove certain building work done by him without the necessary sanction. As the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice, the Municipality prosecuted him under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The plaintiff was acquitted of the charge brought against him. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought the present suit to recover Rs. 725 from the defendant for damages for malicious prosecution. The trial Court dismissed the suit; but, in appeal, the learned Assistant Judge awarded the claim. It is against the decree of the lower appellate Court that the present appeal is made.2. Two points are taken before me by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant. The first is, that an action for false and malicious prosecution cannot lie in the case of a prosecution under the Municipal Act. In support of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalakant Gopalji Vs. Madhavji Vaghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom343; 158Ind.Cas.145
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendant two sums of Rs. 52,747-8-0 and Rs. 8,158-9-0 under two promissory notes dated 29th July 1929, which were passed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's father Gopalji Ramji. Gopalji Ramji died intestate at Bombay on or about 3rd June 1931. Plaintiff is his only son, and claims the two sums as the sole surviving coparcener of a joint and undivided Hindu family of which he and his father were members, or, in the alternative, as the sole heir and legal representative of his father. Plaintiff has not obtained representation to the estate of his father, and at the commencement of the hearing his counsel said that he claimed only as a coparcener. It is clear that the two claims cannot be joined together under the terms of Order 2, Rule 5, Civil P.C. It makes no difference that the second claim is in the alternative to the first: see Whitworth Darbishir (1893) 68 L.T. 216. Plaintiff's father and the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanji Dhana Vs. Dharamsi Dhana and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom303; (1935)37BOMLR230; 157Ind.Cas.646
Broomfield, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 1,500 and odd against the appellant in a suit in the Small Cause Court, Bombay. The decree was transferred for execution to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Andheri. The respondent then filed a darkhast on December 6, 1930, and in reply thereto the appellant (the judgment-debtor) made an application on December 19, 1930, in which he alleged that there had been an adjustment of the decree on November 4, 1930.2. The trial Court framed issues (1) Whether defendant can lead oral evidence regarding the alleged adjustment; (2) Whether defendant can plead the adjustment and satisfaction before this Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held on both issues against the defendant. He relied on Lachman Das v. Baba Ramnath Kalikamliwala I.L.R(1921) All 258, and on Mehbunissa Begum v. Mehmedunnisa Begum (1924) 27 Bom. L.R. 403, I.L.R. 49 Bom. 548. The defendant's application was, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »