Mumbai Court December 1934 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.
Vinayak Ganesh Hasabnis Vs. Narayan Shankar Hasabnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom227; (1935)37BOMLR343
Murphy, J.1. The decree appealed against awards plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 possession of a half share of certain property by a partition to be carried out by metes and bounds and future mesne profits from date of suit to date of possession being obtained of all the property awarded except the Poona house and site for that property from defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 8. A similar share in certain cash allowances sued for was refused to plaintiffs on the ground that they had not obtained the Collector's permission to sue, a prerequisite of the Court's jurisdiction under the Pensions Act.2. Plaintiffs appeal against that portion of the decree refusing them a share in the cash allowances for lack of the necessary certificate and also against the Court's refusal to give them a decree for past mesne profits.3. The cash allowances are payable to the Hasabnis family by the Collector of Salt Revenue and the Collectors of Thana and Ratnagiri. The claim of a share in the one payable in Ratnagiri has been g...
Emperor Vs. Manchershaw Nasserwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom156; (1935)37BOMLR105
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of West Khandesh. The accused was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Taloda, of an offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was released with an admonition by the Magistrate who purported to act under the powers conferred by Section 562 (1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The learned District Magistrate has referred the matter to this Court because he considers that Section 562 (1A) does not apply to any offence punishable only with fine, as is an offence under Section 290, Indian Penal Code. Section 562 is designed to enable the Court to deal leniently with first offenders convicted of offences not of the first gravity, and it is certainly strange to suggest that the section does not apply to offences of such a minor character as to be punishable only with fine. Sub-section (1) deals with offences 'punishable with imprisonment for not more than seven years', and if the words are c...
Chunbidya Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR160
Atkin, J.1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The question arose in this way. The petitioners were tried before the Divisional Sessions Judge at Cawnpore on a charge of murder, and they were in fact convicted of murder. It is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case except to say that the particular act of which they were found guilty was that, with other people, they assaulted the deceased and, after having beaten him severely, laid him down and cut off his foot with an axe and left him there to bleed to death. The Sessions Judge, having convicted the petitioners of murder, sentenced them to transportation for life, and they thereupon appealed to the High Court.2. On appeal to the High Court, the High Court, purporting to exercise their powers under the revision section (439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), gave notice to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced, and, after h...
L. Guran Ditta Vs. T.R. Ditta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR162
Atkin, J.1. These are two appeals from orders of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, made in what may be hoped to be the final stages of a protracted litigation in the course of a family dispute. T. R. Ditta, now deceased and represented by the respondents, was the son of one Teku Ram, by a wife who predeceased him. His two brothers, Guran Ditta and Hari Chand, are the sons by another wife, Musammat Gujri, who survived him and was a party to the litigation. Teku Ram, amongst other property, was entitled to a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 in the Alliance Bank of Simla, in the names of his wife Musammat Gujri, and himself or either or the survivor. After his death the widow instructed the bank to pay to the appellant, Guran Ditta, which they did on May 14, 1921, the amount with interest, amounting to Rs. 1,05,000. In August, 1921, T. R. Ditta commenced a suit against the two brothers and Musammat Gujri, claiming that the Rs 1,00,000 was part of the estate of T...
Kala Ram Vs. the Punjab National Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR387
Alness, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against the judgments and decrees, dated October 22, 1932, of the Judicial Commissioners of the North-West Frontier Province, reversing the judgments and decrees, dated December 2, 1931, of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Peshawar.2. In the first case, the Punjab National Bank, hereinafter termed 'the plaintiff,' filed a suit for Rs. 10,242-11-2 on March 11, 1929, against four brothers, Relumal, Dharam Chand, Gurmukh Dass and Kala Ram, who were said by the plaintiff to have been customers of the Bank and to have incurred to it a debt of that amount. The debt was alleged to have been incurred after July, 1928.3. In the second case, which was directed solely against the appellant, the plaintiff sued for the balance of a loan account-viz., Rs. 6,887-the claim being based on a promissory note dated June 8, 1928,4. The main defence propounded by the appellant was that, on October 5, 1919, he ceased to be a partner in the firm of the f...
Devji Arjan Dalvadi Vs. Bhoja Vaija Kachar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom219; (1935)37BOMLR220
Barlee, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits filed by the plaintiffs, sharers in the talukdari village of Khas in the Dhandhuka Taluka, Ahmedabad District, against the defendants, who, they asserted, were their tenants-at-will. They claimed that they were entitled to recover possession of the suit lands leased out by them to the tenants, that they had issued legal notices to put an end to the tenancies, and that the tenants had disobeyed their notices. The principal appeal is second appeal No. 542 of 1931, with which I shall deal, and the decision of this appeal will govern all the rest.2. The defendant in suit No. 716 of 1927, out of which second appeal No. 542 of 1931 arises, is Dalvadi Devji Arjan. He pleaded that he was the owner of the land in suit and not a tenant, and that the rent-note, on which the suit was based, had been obtained from him by coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation. This rent-note (exhibit 46 at p. 51 of the paper book) was executed by the appellant...
C. Kasivisvanathan Chettiar Vs. S.V.S. Chokalingam Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR837
Sydney Rowlatt, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements (Settlement of Singapore), dated September 14, 1931, setting aside the judgment of Mills J. delivered on October 25, 1930, and giving judgment in favour of the respondent.2. The suit was begun by writ issued on March 9, 1925, by S. Muthuraman Chettiar, suing as the administrator de bonis non of one S. V. S. Subramaniam Chetty deceased (herein called 'the intestate').. The respondent was substituted as plaintiff, suing in the same capacity, by an order dated September 26, 1928.3. As originally framed the suit was against E Kong Guan. The appellant was added as a further defendant by an order dated September 7, 1925. The claim against the appellant, with which alone this appeal is concerned, was to make him accountable for certain shares in a rubber estate called Leong Watt Hin Rubber Estate (afterwards converted into 1,250 shares in Leong Watt Hin Estate, Ltd....
Jinnappa Mahadevappa Kudachi and ors. Vs. Chimmava Krishnappa Kochari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom324; 159Ind.Cas.207
Rangnekar, J.1. I regret the judgment, 'which I am about to deliver in this case; and I wish I could decide the case in favour of the respondents. The question raised is not directly covered by any decision of this Court; but, it is one which can be answered only in one way on principles of Hindu law. The question is whether a portion of a joins family immovable property can be gifted by a Hindu father to his daughter, for her maintenance, who had looked after him in his old age and for whom ho had great love and affection. The question is answered in the affirmative by both the Courts, but on different grounds. The trial Court considers that a Hindu father has the power to make a gift of a reasonable portion of immovable property to his daughter, and relies, in support of its judgment, on Sundararamayya v. Sitamma (1911) 35 Mad. 628. The learned appellate Judge proceeds on the ground that the gift was not of immovable property but was of the income of lands which were given to her, an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›