Mumbai Court October 1936 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.
Emperor Vs. Jamnadas Nathji Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom153; (1937)39BOMLR82
Sen, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Kaira recommending that the conviction of accused Nos. 6 and 8 in a case tried by the Second Class Magistrate, Anand, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Gambling Act, IV of 1887, being illegal may be set aside. In this case there were originally eleven accused persons. Out of them accused No. 3 was examined as an approver witness and accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were convicted. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 appealed to the Honorary First Class Magistrate with appellate powers and were acquitted. Thereafter accused Nos. 6 and 8 made an application in revision to the Sessions Judge who! has made the present reference. The learned Public Prosecutor, Nadiad, opposed this application on the ground that as the applicants had not appealed, no proceedings by way of revision could be entertained at their instance under Section 439(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge has thus stated h...
Emperor Vs. Rudragouda Rachangouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom160; (1937)39BOMLR70
Sen, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by Rudragouda Rachangouda Patil, accused No. 1, and Kallayya Ulavayya Hiremath, accused No. 2, who have been convicted respectively under Sections 409 and 466 and under Section 409 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accused as well as a third person Subbaya Venkaya Havalad were prosecuted under Sections 409, 409 read with Section 109, 466, 466 read with 109, and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 3 was acquitted. Accused No. 1 is the President of the Taluka Local Board of Kalghatgi, and accused No. 2 is the sub-overseer of the same Taluka Local Board. At the trial the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the question which was mainly argued before us in this appeal, viz., whether the Court had jurisdiction to try this case in view of the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section runs thus :-When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, or w...
Emperor Vs. Don Fillius D'Silva
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom165; (1937)39BOMLR77
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this case is as to the legality of a conviction under Section 193 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII of 1925, for failure to comply with a notice issued under Section 167 of the Act. The reference has been made by the Sessions Judge of Thana in a case in which one Don Fillius D'Silva has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Kurla and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10.2. The accused owns a plot of land measuring 6000 sq. yards in the Municipal limits of Kurla. The Chief Officer of the Municipality sent him a notice under Section 167 which was in the following terms :-Whereas the above tank (low lying area) belonging to you which is full of stagnant water is a source of nuisance to the surrounding locality inasmuch as it forms breeding ground for mosquitoes and causes the accumulation of filthy sullage water thus affecting the health and general sanitation of the locality.Now, pursuant to the provisions of Section 167 of the Bombay Mun...
Emperor Vs. Ramnarayan Baburao Kapor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom186; (1937)39BOMLR61
Broomfield, J.1. The appellant in this case, Ramnarayan Baburao Kapur, has been convicted of offences under Sections 498 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of Ranganayaki, the wife of R. Shrinivas Raghavan, and has been sentenced for each offence to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. The charges were, firstly, that between January 23, 1935, and January 31, 1935, at Bombay he took or enticed away Ranganayaki whom he knew to be a married woman from her brother who had the care of her on behalf of her husband with the intent specified in Section 498; secondly, that between January 31, 1935, and February 15, 1935, he detained her at Bombay with the same intent, and, thirdly, that between the dates he committed adultery with her at Bombay.2. The case took a year to dispose of in the Magistrate's Court and the record is very bulky. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, but it will be necessary to set out the facts at some little length. Ranganayaki...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pirojbai N. Contractor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom214; (1937)39BOMLR123
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922, which raises a question within a narrow compass, but of considerable importance in the administration of the law relating to income-tax, and there appears to be no direct authority upon the point. The question is :Inasmuch as the income of the assessee for the year ended March 31, 1934, was not at all assessed in the year 1934-35, was the Income-tax Officer justified in taking action in the following year under Section 34 of the Act to assess the said income which, had escaped assessment?In spite of the absence of authority, I do not feel any doubt as to how the question should be answered.2. The material facts are these. The year of assessment is the year ending March 31, 1935, and the previous year ended on March 31, 1934. No notice was served on the assessee under Section 22, Sub-section (2), during the year of assessment, but on June 24, 193...
Radha Hambirrao Patil Vs. Dinkarrao Hambirrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom208; (1937)39BOMLR147
Wassoodew, J.1. The common question raised in these three appeals Nos. 918, 919 and 1023 of 1932 relates to the validity of the adoption of one Dinkarrao by one of the three surviving, widows of Hambirrao by name Guna. In one of the suits, the adoptee Dinkarrao has claimed to recover possession of certain property from the co-widows of his adoptive mother, and the other two suits are for a similar relief by the two transferees from the said Dinkarrao.2. The material facts leading to these suits, which are not disputed, are these. Hambirrao, who possessed considerable property, died in 1918, leaving behind him three widows, the adoptive mother Guna, who was the most senior in age, and two others, in order of seniority, Radha, defendant No. 1, and Savitri, defendant No. 2. Guna claiming to be the most senior widow on account of her alleged marriage with Hambirrao before the two others,-adopted one Subrao in 1919, who was the sister's son of the said Hambirrao. The status of Subrao was ch...
Shankar Govind Bhosale Vs. Revashankar Purshottam Trivedi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom196; (1937)39BOMLR152
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for revision of an order made by a Judge of the Small Cause Court, Bombay. The sum involved is only Rs. 1-8-0, but the application raises a question of some importance in relation to the costs of distress warrants issued by the Small Cause Court. That matter is dealt with under Chapter VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, XV of 1882, and it will be convenient to deal with the Act before coming to the facts of this particular case, as to which there is no dispute.2. Under Section 53 any person claiming to be entitled to arrears of rent of any house or premises, to which Chapter VIII extends, may apply to any Judge of the Small Cause Court, or to the Registrar of the Small Cause Court, for a warrant as thereinafter mentioned, and the application is to be accompanied by an affidavit in the form (marked A) in the third schedule. Section 54 provides that the Judge or Registrar may thereupon issue a warrant under his hand and seal a...
In Re: Mahadeo Krishna Rupji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom98; (1936)38BOMLR1286
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia in Chambers, and it raises a question of some importance to owners of property residing in Bombay. The petitioner and his minor sons are members of a joint Hindu family, and the petitioner is the manager. According to the statements contained in the petition the petitioner has had to borrow on the security of the joint family property substantial sums of money, part of them being secured on existing mortgages, and part of them being unsecured. What he now desires to do is to raise a sum of Rs. 40,000 for the purpose of paying off all the existing debts of the joint family, and he wants to secure that sum of Rs. 40,000 by a mortgage of joint family property. The proposed mortgagee is not willing to advance the money unless an order is made by this Court appointing the petitioner guardian of his minor sons and sanctioning the mortgage on behalf of the minor sons. The learned Judge, without going in...
Emperor Vs. Vishnushankar Vasantram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom150; (1937)39BOMLR89
Tyabji, J.1. We are not prepared to disturb the finding that the payment of toll has been evaded by the applicant. On this finding (subject to an argument that the applicant was not liable to pay the toll at all) the decision of this application depends on whether the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, (Bom. Ill of 1901), empowers the Godhra Municipality to make a bye-law to the following effect :(1) No person shall, with the intention of evading payment of the toll-tax take or attempt to take any conveyance liable to pay such tax into the limits of the Municipality, without paying the tax at the toll-naka.(2) A breach of this bye-law shall on conviction be punishable with fine which may extend to five rupees for each offence.2. The powers of the Municipality to make bye-laws are contained in Section 48 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. That section empowers the Municipality (with certain restrictions not now material) to make bye-laws not inconsistent with the Act regulating the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›