Mumbai Court June 1935 Judgments
Emperor Vs. L.M. Marino
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR658; 159Ind.Cas.90
Broomfield, J.1. This application raises an important point as to the jurisdiction and powers of the Sessions Judge of Aden under the Aden Civil and Criminal Justice Regulation VI of 1933.2. The facts may be very briefly stated. There was a collision' between two motor ears at the cross roads near the National Bank of India at Crater in Aden in consequence of which a passenger in one of the cars was fatally injured. The drivers of the two cars were prosecuted for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the First Class Magistrate at Aden convicted the driver of one car and fined him Rs. 500. He acquitted the other, who was accused No. 2 and who is the applicant before Us. There were two revision applications to the Sessions Judge of Aden; one by the convicted accused and ode by the Public Prosecutor in the case of the Other accused who was acquitted. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of accused No, 1. He set aside the acquittal of accused No. 2 and sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Krishnayya Rao Vs. the Rajah of Pittapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR852
George Lowndes, J.1. This appeal was before the Board in June, 1933, when a preliminary point was considered as to the admissibility of certain evidence which had been rejected by the Indian Courts. As the result of that hearing an order of His Majesty in Council was promulgated by which the evidence in question was declared to be admissible, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh findings upon certain of the issues to which the evidence related. It now comes back to the Board, with the findings of the High Court, for final disposal of the appeal.2. The relevant facts are set out at length in the judgment delivered by Lord Russell of Killowen on June 30, 1933 [Krishnayya Rao v. Raja of Pittapur and it is only necessary now to summarise them very briefly.3. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the respondent praying for a declaration that the adoption of appellant No. 1 by defendant No. 1, since deceased, and now represented by appellant No. 2, was inval...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Appa Ganpat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom399; (1935)37BOMLR656; 159Ind.Cas.176
Broomfield, J.1. This application raises a point as to the construction of Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, IV of 1887. That section runs as follows :-Whoever-(a) being the owner or occupier or having the use of any house, room or place, opens, keeps or uses the same for the purpose of a common gaming-house,(b) being the owner or occupier of any such house, room or place knowingly or wilfully permits the same to be opened, occupied, kept or used by any other person for the purpose aforesaid,(c) has the care or management of, or in any manner assists in conducting the business of, any such house, room or place opened, occupied, kept or used for the purpose aforesaid.(d) advances or furnishes money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting any such house, room or place, shall be punished(a) for a first offence with imprisonment which may extend to, three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees;(b) for a second offence with imprisonment whic...
Tag this Judgment!Dorabji Nowrosjee Pajnigar Vs. Jamshedji Pestonji Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom218; (1936)38BOMLR395; 163Ind.Cas.300
Blackwell, Officiating C.J.1. This is a suit upon a promissory note dated May 11, 1932, to recover the sum of Rs. 5,000 and interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem. The promissory note has been put in as exhibit A. It contains the following provision : ' money to be payable at Poona, Bombay, or elsewhere.' The note was endorsed by the present plaintiff to-Messrs. Juharmal Jivraj & Co., but was subsequently endorsed back by them to the plaintiff, and notice of that fact was given by Messrs. Juharmal Jivraj & Co. to the defendant. These facts appear from documents containing exhibit No. 1, which were put in by consent.2. The only material part of the written statement is the first paragraph in which the defendant submits that the promissory note in suit not having been presented for payment, the suit is not maintainable; and the only issue raised is whether the suit is maintainable having regard to the fact that the promissory note in suit has not been presented for payment to t...
Tag this Judgment!The Bharat Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Manilal Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR826
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Bharat Spinning & Weaving Company, Limited (hereinafter called the company) against a final order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated March 24, 1933, which reversed an order made by a learned Judge of that Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction dated September 8, 1932,2. In the Courts in India two of the points relied upon by the respondents to this appeal were, viz. : (1) whether an award under the Indian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) against a firm in the name of the firm is valid ; and (2) 'whether it is competent for the High Court under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 50 (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine whether persons who dispute that they are partners in a firm against which an award has been made in the name of the firm are so liable.3. Both the Courts in India decided these questions against the respondents and their learned counsel has not r...
Tag this Judgment!Homeshwar Singh Vs. Kameshwar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR800
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Patna, affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga and giving the plaintiff, the Maharajadhiraj of Dar-ibhanga, a mortgage decree against the five defendants (1) Babus Homeshwar Singh (2) Kuleshwar Singh (3) Chiteshwar Singh and (4) and (5) Padma-nandji Singh and Taranandji Singh, the minor sons of Kuleshwar Singh, on a mortgage executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the plaintiff's favour on February 20, 1923, for Rs. 5,40,506. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 2,29,214-10-4 owing to the plaintiff as shown in Sch. Ill ; Rs. 2,21,129-10-9 to be paid by the plaintiff to set aside a Court-sale of the defendant's properties which were the subject of a babuani maintenance grant made by the plaintiff's :grandfather to the grandfather of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, and were stated to be worth forty lakhs of rupees ; and the balance of Rs. 90,000 odd as shown in Sch. IV to b...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Goenka Vs. Munshi Ram NaraIn Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR794
John Wallis, J.1. In this case the right of a judgment creditor to bring the properties of a mutt to sale in execution of a money-decree against the Mahanth of the mutt has for more than a quarter of a century been the subject of incessant litigation and a multiplicity of suits in the Courts below, and now comes before this Board for the first time. In 1898 the Mahanth of the Suja Mutt died and was succeeded by Siaram Das, the judgment-debtor in this case. A few months later in January 1899 the Mahanth of the neighbouring Sersia Mutt, as next friend of his nephew, Mahabir Das, who is said to have been six years old, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr against Siaram Das to establish the minor's right to succeed to the office of Mahanth of the Suja Mutt, and according to his own statement spent a sum far in excess of Rs. 31,000 in prosecuting the suit. One of his first steps after instituting the suit was to apply for the appointment of a receiver, who on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›