Mumbai Court August 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.
Dundoobai Anandrao Deshmukh Vs. Vithalrao Anandrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom182; (1936)38BOMLR193
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by respondent No. 1 claiming as the adopted son of one Anandrao who died in 1912, to establish his right to the property of his adoptive father in the hands of the defendants. Anandrao died without issue but leaving three widows, the eldest of whom, Krishnabai adopted the plaintiff on November 4, 1924. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the other two widows. Defendant No. 3 is the brother of defendant No. 1 and is in possession of some of the property sold to him by her in 1920. The other defendants are tenants in occupation of some of the lands. The lands in suit are situated in the villages of Chikurde and Peth. They were formerly Deshmukhi watan, but the watan lapsed to Government in 1923. The only contesting defendants were Nos. 1 and 3. At the trial of the suit they made various allegations, denying the adoption, alleging that Krishnabai had been abandoned by her husband, that she had been prohibited from making any adop...
Raghavendra Hanmantrao Bennur Vs. Industrial Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom396; (1936)38BOMLR927; 165Ind.Cas.512
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District judge of Bijapur and it raises a short point.2. In the year 1926 an award was made between the present appellant and the respondent under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act of 1925 and under that award the present appellant was directed to pay Rs. 180 and interest to the respondent. On April 22, 1931, an application was made to the Registrar to grant a certificate under Section 59 (2) (a) of the Act and the certificate was granted on the same date and these darkhast proceedings were filed on March 12, 1932. It is argued that the darkhast is barred by Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act. That article limits the time for the execution of a decree or order of any civil Court. Now it seems to me perfectly clear that the award of an arbitrator made under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act is not a decree of a civil Court; but it is suggested that it has the characteristics of a de...
Emperor Vs. Vaijappa Shivlingappa Humberwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR739; 158Ind.Cas.649
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made to this Court by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. The accused was convicted under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and under that section the only punishment which can be inflicted is one of fine. The accused being a first offender, the trial Court dealt with him under Section 562(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and required him to enter into a bond to appear and receive sentence when called upon. The District Magistrate has referred the matter to this Court, because in his view Section 562(i) does not apply to an offence punishable with fine only. His view is in accordance with the decision of a bench of this Court in Emperor v. Kasturi : (1926)28BOMLR1031 , and there is also a dictum of this Court to the same effect in Emperor v. Merwanji I.L.R (1928) 52 Bom. 250 : 30 Bom. L.R. 375. The question which this full bench has to consider is whether that construction of Section 562(1) is right. The sub-section provides that whe...
Govindbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Nathabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR175; 163Ind.Cas.632
Broomfield, J.1. Desaibhai Jivabhai, the maternal uncle of the plaintiff, had a one-third share in a recognised sub-division (eleven annas eleven pies) in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand taluka. He made a will on September 5, 1891, leaving his property, which was partly narwa and partly non-narwa (sanadia), first to his senior wife Jhaver, then to his junior wife Saker, then to his daughter Divali, and finally to the plaintiff. Jhaver inherited and after her Divali, Saker having died before Jhaver. (Actually it seems there were two wives named Saker; the first one died before the testator). Divali died on January 27, 1918, and on her death, according to the finding of the trial Judge, plaintiff was for a time in possession of the estate or part of it. The defendants, who were co-sharers with Desaibhai in the recognised subdivision of the narwa but are not his heirs nor the heirs of Divali, deny that plaintiff got possession and claim to have been in possession themselves. The...
Emperor Vs. Gulabrao Chandgude
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR745
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application asking us to review an order made against the applicant under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing him to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00Q with one surety for the like amount to be of good behaviour for one year.2. The only point of law which arises in revision is as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who dealt with the matter. The case was originally on, the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, First Class, Eastern Division, Poona, and it was transferred from his file by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona, to the file of the Special Magistrate, First Class, Poona Cantonment. Now having regard to the provisions of Sections 107 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to establish jurisdiction in the Magistrate to make an order, it must be shown that the village where the accused lives and where the act complained of has been committed (i.e., the village of Supe), is within the local juri...
Gulabrao Laxmanrao Chandgude Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom409; 162Ind.Cas.207
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a revision application asking us to review an order made against the applicant under Section 118, Criminal Procedure Code, directing him to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with one surety for the like amount to be of good behaviour for one year.2. The only point of law which arises in revision is as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who dealt with the matter. The case was originally on the Tile of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Eastern Division, Poona, and it was transferred from his file by the Additional District Magistrate, Poona, to the file of the Special Magistrate, First Class, Poona Cantonment. Now having regard to the provisions of Sections 107 and 110, Criminal Procedure Code, in order to establish jurisdiction in the Magistrate to make an order, it must be shown that the village where the accused lives and where the act complained of has been committed (i.e., the village of Supe), is within the local jurisdiction of the Specia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›