Mumbai Court January 1935 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.
Ahmad Abdul Razak and ors. Vs. Jamala Bint Mehdi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.630
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a civil reference by the District and Sessions Judge of Aden under Section 8 of Regulation VI of 1933 (Aden) in a suit pending before him. That section provides:(1) Where before or on the hearing by the District Judge of a suit or an appeal in which suit or appeal the decree is not subject to appeal or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises on which the District Judge entertains reasonable doubt the District Judge may either of his own motion or on the application of any of the parties draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained and refer such statement with his own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.2. Accordingly the District Judge has made this reference. The suit which has given rise to this reference was brought by the nephews of one Idriss Abdul Kadir against his widow. Idriss Abdul Kadir was an employee...
Emperor Vs. Chhotan Hasmat Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom188; (1935)37BOMLR182; 158Ind.Cas.378
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application by the Government of Bombay which raises a short point of law. The accused, who is a man of twenty-four years of age, was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Surat under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, and as he had a previous conviction against him under Section 12 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, the learned Magistrate was of opinion that it was not open to him to give the accused the benefit of the provisions of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to first offenders. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Surat was of opinion that the provisions of Section 562 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code could be applied to the case, on the ground that the previous conviction being under a local law, did not prevent the operation of the section. The learned Judge considered that there was some analogy between the present case, and the case of King-Emperor v. Khan Muhammad (1904) 1 CrI. L.J. ...
Devchand Totaram Kirange Vs. Ghanashyam Sakharam Chavdhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom361; (1935)37BOMLR417; 158Ind.Cas.414
Murphy, J.1. These two first appeals have very similar subject-matters and have been heard together as the two suits were tried together in the Court below. They turn on the constitution of the leva patidar caste and its government. The leva patidars were migrants from Gujerat to the north-east of the Khandesh district in the Yaval taluka and some of the caste have gone beyond and into adjacent villages in the Nizam's dominions and Berar. The headquarters of the caste are at Padalsa and there the kutumbnayaks, or representatives of the leading families, reside. These by turn are leaders of the caste, and summon the caste panchayat and also issue its decisions. A panchayat is convened by sending a summons in the form of a notice, in a book kept for the purpose, by messengers from village to village, till all those in which leva patidars are living have been served. The messenger takes the book to the leading man of each village and he, and sometimes other leading men as well, sign it in...
Gopal Bhaurao Jape Vs. Jagannath Pandit Vasudeorao Pandit Maharaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom326; (1935)37BOMLR471; 159Ind.Cas.213
Rangnekar, J.1. The appellant brought a suit for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering in any way with his possession and enjoyment of certain lands which, he alleged, were leased to him by a registered lease dated July 8, 1922, for a period of twenty-five years at a certain rental, and in the alternative for possession of the lands. The question in the suit related to the validity of this lease, the defendant contending that it was obtained from him by undue influence and misrepresentation. Although the plaintiff originally alleged that he was in possession, it is clear on the record that he admitted later on that at the date of the suit and for some time previous to it the defendant had been in possession of the lands in question.2. Both the Courts found that the lease was obtained by undue influence and misrepresentation. Hence this appeal.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the lower Courts on this issue cannot be accepted, and it ...
Emperor Vs. Deorao Bhivaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom202; (1935)37BOMLR191
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Sholapur under Section 43(7) (a) and (A) of the Bombay Abkari Act (Born. V of 1878). On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Sholapur considered that the accused could not be convicted and sentenced under both the sub-sections as such a course would be contrary to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, and he accordingly set aside the conviction under Section 43(1) (a) but upheld the conviction and the sentence under Section 43(J)(A). From that decision the Government of Bombay appealed.2. In my opinion the view of the learned Sessions Judge is wrong. It seems to me clear from the wording of the Act that the two sub-sections create quite distinct offences. Sub-section (a) makes it an offence to import, export, transport or possess any excisable article or hemp ; and sub-s.(h) makes it an offence to use, keep or possess any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus ...
Shankar Vishvanath Katre Vs. Shrinivas Bhalchandra Purohit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom254(1); (1935)37BOMLR355
Rangnekar, J.1. Mr. Kane on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to this appeal that no second appeal lies.2. The question is whether the suit which has given rise to this appeal is a suit of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, The suit was to recover Rs. 24-5-7 as rent due in respect of the plaint property for two years including galli-patti and local cess. The defendants' case was that the rent was fixed at six maunds and eight payalis, that the suit would not lie until the plaintiffs got a declaration that they were entitled to enhance the rent, and that the rent claimed was excessive. On the face of these pleadings it seems to me that the suit was of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, and that being so, the objection must be upheld, and the second appeal must be dismissed.3. It is argued, however, by the appellant's counsel that the suit being to recover the amount of that and galli-patti, it could not be considered to be a suit of the n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›