Mumbai Court July 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.
Mahomedali Shekh Ibhramji Hora Vs. Akbarali BadruddIn Abdualli Hora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom69; (1934)36BOMLR1234
Macklin, J.1. This appeal against a mortgage decree has been brought on the ground that the appellant-defendant is an agriculturist. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent to the effect that the appeal is not properly stamped. The appellant bases the appeal upon his alleged agricultural status, which status was not accepted in the lower Court. In the lower Court he was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 14,092-10-6 (with interest) upon a mortgage under the ordinary law and not under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The defendant-appellant has paid Court-fees on an estimated claim of Rs. 200.2. It has been argued by Mr. Shah for the plaintiff-respondent that in effect the decree against which this appeal is brought is a money decree and that the Court-fee should, therefore, be payable upon the whole decretal amount. The argument is based upon the rulings in Pochalal v. Umedram : AIR1928Bom476 and Srinivasacharlu v. Perindevamma I.L.R (1915) Mad. 725 . where it was held...
Bhaiya Raghunath Singh Vs. Musammat Hansraj Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1189
Russell, J.1. This appeal from the High Court at Allahabad arises in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and further charge, the appellants, being the heirs of some of the original mortgagees.2. The relevant facts leading up to the present litigation must first be stated.3. The mortgage and further charge are both dated June 22, 1864. By the mortgage certain shares in five villages were mortgaged by way of conditional sale, the mortgagees being placed in possession, with no liability to account for mesne profits. The principal money was repayable at the end of three years. A further principal sum was secured by the further charge.4. In the year 1892 the mortgagor instituted a redemption suit alleging that nothing was due under the securities, and claiming to be put into ' possession of the shares in the five villages, or, if the Court should find that any sum was due, that it might order redemption subject to the payment of such sum. The result of that suit was that as to the shares in...
Chhotalal Karunashankar Vs. Nathubhai Dajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom97; (1934)36BOMLR1242
S.J. Murphy Ag., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad, in suit No. 345 of 1918, which was for redemption of a mortgage for Rs. 19,981, executed in 1877. The mortgage terms were that the mortgagees were to be in. possession of the share of the village lands mortgaged for fifty-one years, to take the rents for there interest, and to be repaid the sum secured or Expiry of the fifty-one years' term. The mortgagees were also to expend Rs. 4,500 in improvements, for it appears that the land of the mortgaged share was then largely uncultivated, and to receive Rs. 4,251 as interest on the sum so expended. The mortgage amount was made up of Rs. 8,500 to be paid in satisfaction of an earlier mortgage decree, and of Rs. 2,600 paid in cash, the balance being the amount for improvements and its interest. When the previous mortgagee came to be paid off, it was found that Rs. 436-4-2 more were due, i.e., not Rs. 8,500 but Rs. 8,936-4-2, and the m...
Government Pleader Bombay Vs. Ramanlal Jethalal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1225
Macklin, J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader under Section 25 of the Bombay Pleaders Act made as a result of two applications-to the District Judge of Kaira against Mr. Ramanlal Jethalal Shah. The allegations against the pleader are three. The first is that in an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate purporting to be under Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he suppressed the fact that in a previous order made by the District Magistrate in respect of the same person, (whose release was desired) the District Magistrate had ordered that Gomti was at liberty to go or stay as she wished, and also that in the same application he suppressed the fact that his own client was primarily responsible for this girl being detained at the ashram, and suggested, on the contrary, that other persons were responsible for it. The second charge against him is that in respect of the same case as the one just mentioned he made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate f...
Government Pleader Vs. R. A. Pleader
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom71
Macklin, J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader under Section 25, Bombay Pleaders Act, made as a result of two applications to the District Judge of Kaira against Mr. R. The allegations against the pleader are three. The first is that in an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate purporting to be under Section 100, Criminal P.C. he suppressed the fact that in a previous order made by the District Magistrate in respect of the same person, (whose release was desired) the District Magistrate had ordered that Gomti was at liberty to go or stay as she wished, and also that in the same application he suppressed the fact that his own client was primarily responsible for this girl being detained at the ashram, and suggested, on the contrary, that other persons were responsible for it. The second charge against him is that in respect of the same case as the one just mentioned he made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for a transfer of the case without disclosin...
Emperor Vs. Dhondiba Santoo Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom487; (1934)36BOMLR950; 153Ind.Cas.278
Rangnekar, J.1. In this case a question of procedure has been raised by Mr. Taleyarkhan, who appears on behalf of the Crown, and it is, whether the prosecution is bound to supply the defence with a copy of the statement of a witness who has not been examined before the committing Magistrate and whom the prosecution propose to examine for the first time in the Sessions Court. The Clerk of the Crown has also requested me to give a considered ruling on the point.2. I do not think it will be disputed that the prosecution can examine witnesses in the Sessions Court, who were not previously examined before the committing Magistrate. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code which in terms would prevent them from doing so. Apart from the question which I have now to determine, there is one principle which I should like to stress and that is, that when the prosecution proposes to examine new witnesses, the prosecuting counsel should always mention in his opening address the names of the ...
Emperor Vs. Inderchand Bachraj Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom471; (1934)36BOMLR954
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The accused Inderchand Bachraj Marwadi was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Western Division, East Khandesh, of offences under Sections 209 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer eight months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months' further imprisonment under each offence. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be consecutive. In appeal the Sessions Judge of East Khandesh reduced the sentences to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months' further imprisonment under each offence, the sentences of imprisonment to be concurrent. Against this decision the accused filed an application in revision to this Court. This application was heard by a single Judge,. Mr. Justice Kania, during the vacation, and was summarily dismissed on April 30, 1934. After this decision the Government have filed the present application in revision asking that the sentences passed upon the accused...
Shidgouda Basvantgouda Patil Vs. Bhimgouda Appaya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom78; (1934)36BOMLR1222
Macklin, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum in connection with an arbitration award. The appeal purports to be under Section 104(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code against 'an order superseding an arbitration where the award has not been completed within the period allowed by the Court.' The plaintiff in the suit had sued for possession of his alleged one-third share in the suit property and for having his share divided by metes and bounds, and for other reliefs. Arbitrators were appointed to go into the matter, and it was directed that their award should be made on or before July 20, 1931. Two days before the time fixed for the expiry of the award, (i.e. on July 18, 1931), they applied for an extension of time on the main ground that it was difficult to divide the land during the rains. The time was accordingly extended to July 31. On July 31 two of the arbitrators applied for a further month's time for completing the award, a...
Jagannath Ravji Kondkar Vs. Laxmibai Anant Laxman Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom111; (1934)36BOMLR1220
S.J. Murphy, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, the point for decision being whether the appeal in question has been properly valued in the following circumstances.2. The suit was for partition and possession of a half share in certain property and for mesne profits. The mesne profits were determined at Rs. 15,910 and an order was made against the defendants for this amount. They do not dispute the amount in appeal, but only the fact that the order has been made against them personally, whereas being the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant, they claim that this should not have been done and have stamped the appeal with Rs. 15 only worth of Court-fee stamps under Article 17(vii) of the Court-fees Act, while in the Taxing Officer's opinion it should have been stamped as for an appeal against a decree for Rs. 15,910. Mr. Walavalkar for the applicant relied on the case of Radha Kishan v. Mektab Mian (1925) VII L.L.J. 364. The reasoni...
Mahomed HusseIn Haji Gulam Mahomed Ajam Vs. Aishabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom84; (1934)36BOMLR1155; 155Ind.Cas.334
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a suit for the administration of the estate of one Haji Gulam Mahomed Ajam, who died in Bombay, on or about March 1, 1928, leaving him surviving as his only heirs, according to the Sunni Muhammadan law by which he was governed, a widow, two sons and three daughters. He left a will in the Gujarati writing dated January 9, 1928, of which he appointed his widow and one of his daughters, being defendants Nos. 1 and 2, executrices. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, however, have not obtained probate of the will. The plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are the sons, and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the two other daughters, of the deceased. He died possessed of properties, moveable and immoveable, of large value in Bombay, Rangoon, and other places in India. Some of his properties were equitably mortgaged to Mr. F. E. Dinshaw during his lifetime, and other properties were mortgaged in favour of the Central Bank of India, Ltd.2. The suit was filed on June 19, 1928. On November 26, 192...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »