Mumbai Court August 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. Khan Mahomed Shermahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.870
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the District1 Magistrate, Bombay Suburban District, inviting us to enhance the sentence passed upon the accused, who is convicted under Section 301-A, Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150, in default, three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts are that the accused was driving a motor lorry on October 22, 1935, along the Ghodbunder Road from Andheri to Malad. At the same time, a private motor car was coming from Malad towards Andheri on the proper side of the road. There was a bullock cart going in the same direction as the accused's lorry, and with a view to passing the bullock cart the accused swerved on to the right-hand side of the road His own case is, that owing to another lorry in front of him, which had just passed the bullock cart, he was not able to see whether the road was clear, and he did not see the approaching car. If he was not able to see that the road was clear, he had, of course, no right to go...
The Ahmedabad Ginning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom226; (1937)39BOMLR266
Broomfield, J.1. The main appeal No. 155 of 1930 is an appeal by the Ahmedabad Ginning and Manufacturing Company Limited, commonly known as the Madhubhai Mills, against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad' dismissing a suit for refund of Rs. 15,581-5-7 alleged to have been illegally recovered as non-agricultural assessment on lands belonging to the company for the years 1925-26 to 1927-28, and for an injunction against the recovery of this assessment in future.2. The question involved is whether Government had the right to levy non-agricultural assessment at the rate of Rs. 200 per acre on these lands which were appropriated to non-agricultural purposes with the permission of Government on payment of fine.3. The plaintiff company owned seven survey numbers in Sherkotda, a suburb of Ahmedabad, which were originally assessed as agricultural lands. At various times between 1863 to 1894 these survey numbers or portions of them were permitted to be applied to non-agri...
Gemalsingji Khumansingji Vs. Bai Fati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1205
Rangnekar, J.1. The facts which gave rise to the suit, out of which this appeal arises, are somewhat complicated, but for the purpose of elucidating the point which arises for decision in this appeal they may be briefly stated as follows.2. It appears from the pedigree, which is set out at print page 2, that certain property, including the property in suit, belonged to one Umar Asrnal Gani. He died in 1915 leaving a widow Bai Maula and two daughters,- Bai Fati, plaintiff No. 1, and Bai Mulak, who died before the suit. He had two brothers, Gori and Fuli who were plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. His father had four brothers, two of whom were plaintiff No. 5 and plaintiff No. 6. The other brothers were Vali and Abhram. The parties are Mahomedans. Prior to his death Umar had made a will. His uncles, plaintiff No. 5 and plaintiff No. 6, and Vali and Abhram-therefore, brought a suit, No. 163 of 1916, for a declaration that the will made by Umar was not binding on them, and for a partition of the pro...
Gemalsingji Khumansingji and anr. Vs. Bai Fati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1939Bom40
Rangnekar, J.1. The facts which gave rise to the suit, out of which this appeal arises, are somewhat complicated, but for the purpose of elucidating the point which arises for decision in this appeal they may be briefly stated as follows: It appears from the pedigree, which is set out at print page 2, that certain property, including the property in suit, belonged to one Umar Asmal Gani. He died in 1915 leaving a widow Bai Maula and two daughters, Bai Fati, plaintiff 1, and Bai Mulag, who died before the suit. He had two brothers, Gori and Fuli, who were plaintiffs 3 and 4. His father had four brothers, two of whom were plaintiff 5 and plaintiff 6. The other brothers were Vali and Abhram. The parities are Mahomedans. Prior to his death Umar had made a will. His uncles, plaintiff 5 and plaintiff 6 and Vali and Abhram, therefore brought a suit No. 163 of 1916 for a declaration that the will made by Umar was not binding on them, and for a partition of the property left by Umar and recover...
Gurunath Khandappagouda Patil Vs. Venkatesh Lingo Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom101; (1936)38BOMLR1326
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal is an offshoot of the well-known Privy Council decision in Bhimabai v. Gurunalhgouda Khcmdappagouda (1932) L.R. 60 I. A. 25 : 35 Bom. L.R. 200, and the short point which arises in this first appeal is, whether under the circumstances of the case the respondent is, under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, entitled to a refund of certain costs which he had paid to the appellant under the decree made by the trial Court.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant brought a suit in the Dharwar Court against five persons, of whom the respondent was defendant No. 3. The suit was for a declaration that the adoption of defendant No. 2, who was the son of defendant No. 3, by defendant No. 1 was illegal and invalid, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in the enjoyment of the property in dispute. The trial Court 1 made a decree in favour of the appellant with costs against all the defendants. After this decision, the appellant execut...
Bai Ganga Vs. Amritlal Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom35; (1936)38BOMLR1107; 166Ind.Cas.574
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge o Nadiad under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, asking this Court to interfer in exercise of its powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the order of the Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad, assuming jurisdiction in an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Cod for maintenance made by the wife against the husband.2. The facts which are not seriously disputed before us are that the parties are husband and wife and were living together as such at Viramgam for ver nearly twelve or thirteen years in a house hired by the husband who has been working as a talati at that place. The husband had also hired a house at Nadiad for storing his kit after separation from his coparceners. In 193' or thereabouts the wife left her husband and came to Nadiad and lived ii the hired house of the husband. The latter did not provide her with main tenance and she accordingly applied on Novem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›