Mumbai Court February 1937 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.
Gurunath Shankar Godkhindi Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom357
Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused was an Assistant Station Master at Khanapur on 28th August 1936, and on that day he is said to have abused one Mr. Joshi, a pleader of Belguam, and he is being charged with an offence under Section 120, Railways Act. He took a preliminary objection that Section 120 did not apply to acts done by a railway official when acting in his official capacity. The learned Magistrate overruled that preliminary objection, and his decision was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum in appeal. The accused now applies to this Court in revision. Sections 99 to 105 (inclusive) of the Railways Act deal expressly with offences by railway servants. The group of sections is headed 'Offences by Eailway Servants.' Section 106 starts a new group of sections under the heading 'Other Offences,' and Section 120 falls within that group. It is contended by the applicant that the sections falling under the head 'Other Offences' deal with offences by passengers or other per...
The Bharat Dharma Syndicate Limited Vs. Harish Chandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR963
Russell, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Allahabad, by which it was ordered that the appellant company, the Bharat Dharma Syndicate Limited, be wound up. The decree was made on the petition of the respondent, who when he presented the petition was the holder of one ordinary share of Rs. 25 upon which Rs. 12 had been paid up. He deposited the balance of Rs. 13 in Court during the proceedings.2. The petition was heard by two Judges, Thom J. and Iqbal Ahmad J. A long and elaborate reserved judgment was delivered, which dealt in great detail with the history of the company from its formation down to the time when the petition was presented, and with the evidence and credibility of the witnesses in the case. The Court came to the conclusion that the company ought to be wound up on two grounds, viz.-(i) that it was insolvent and (ii) that it was just and equitable that it should be wound up, owing (to put it shortly) to its fraudulent flotation and its fraudulent ca...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, United and Central Provinces Vs. Badri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR765
Russell, J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax for the United and Central Provinces appeals from a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, on a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). The respondent taxpayer did not appear on the hearing of the appeal.2. The case relates to an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 23(4) of the Act, subsequently to an alleged failure by the taxpayer to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Section 22(4) of the Act. It will be convenient before stating the facts of the case to set out the provisions of the Act (as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1930, and the Indian Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1930), which are relevant, and under which the various steps in the case, leading up to the reference, were taken. They are the following :-22. (1)...(2) In the case of any person other than a company whose total income is, in the Incom...
Mangal Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR960
Alness, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated April 27, 1936, which affirmed the conviction of the appellant and the sentence of death passed upon him by the Sessions Judge of Montgomery, dated February 13, 1936.2. The following is a summary of the relevant facts :-One Narain Singh married a widow, Musammat Harnam Kaur, who died in or about the year 1931. The appellant is her son by a previous marriage. By her marriage with Narain Singh she had four sons, the eldest being Kartar Singh. After the death of Musammat Harnam Kaur, Narain Singh indulged in a liaison with his widowed sister-in-law Musammat Basant Kaur.3. In the early part of October, 1935, Narain Singh disappeared from his home. Following upon a panchayat, searchers, including the appellant, were despatched with a view to finding the missing man. On October 13, the searchers, other than the appellant, returned unsuccessfully from the search. The appe...
Nathu Mal Vs. Raman Mal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR955
Russell, J.1. In this appeal their Lordships are called upon to construe a mortgage instrument which may be fairly described as a primitive piece of conveyancing, the language of which is sadly lacking in clearness and precision.2. It is dated May 15, 1919. The parcels which constitute the security for the loan consisted of two houses and a shop in Amritsar, and two shops in the city of Lahore. The two shops in Lahore were subject to two mortgages in favour of one Raman Mal dated respectively February 26, 1906, and March 9, 1918, while the whole of the abovementioned property (including; the two shops in Lahore) was subject to a mortgage in favour of one Lala Balla Mal dated May 5, 1917. It was for the purpose (inter alia) of paying off this last mentioned mortgage that a sum of Rs. 13,500 was borrowed from the appellant Nathu Mal, and the repayment thereof was secured by the deed of May) 15, 1919. The security was for a fixed term of two years-and carried interest at a rate equivalent...
In Re: Anandi Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom388; (1937)39BOMLR468
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Magistrate of Poona under the Bombay Children Act, 1924. It appears that the original applicant, who alleges that he is the father of the three children of the respondent, Anandi, but who failed to prove that fact, instituted proceedings under Section 7 of the Bombay Children Act, and on those proceedings the Magistrate made an order directing that the three children should be placed under the care of Revd. Mother Superior of the Mount Mary Convent High School, Bandra, for a period of three years, and the mother was to pay the boarding and other fees. Then the mother's right of access was restricted by the order which states that 'the children should be continually under the care of the Revd. Mother and not allowed to go home for their holidays. But their mother only may be permitted to visit them and correspond with them according to the rules of the Convent. All letters addressed to th...
Musa Baba Bondre Vs. Badesaheb Fakirmahomed Bondre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom84; (1937)39BOMLR1108; 173Ind.Cas.376
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit to recover possession of certain property on the ground that she was one of the donees of the suit property. The parties are Mahomedans, and the main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the deed of gift passed by one Bala in favour of the plaintiff and her brother Bawa Petkar on March 10, 1920, was valid under the Mahomedan law. There were several other points arising for decision, and the trial Court decided most of them in the plaintiff's favour. But that Court was of opinion that the deed of gift to two persons jointly of undefined shares in the gifted property, was invalid under the Mahomedan law, and even though possession was given to the donees, as has been found by the trial Court in this case, that would not validate the deed of gift, as it gave undefined portions to the donees. Therefore, on this point the trial Court decided against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.2. On appeal, the learned District Judge ...
Mahadev Atmaram Vs. Ramchandra Vithal Parulekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom96; (1937)39BOMLR1172; 173Ind.Cas.751
Kania, J.1. This suit is filed by a Bombay commission agent to recover from the two defendants the amount due to him at the foot of the account between him and the firm of Ramchandra Vithal Parulekar. When the suit was originally filed in September, 1935, there was only one defendant and that was the first defendant firm. On January 16, 1936, an order was obtained making the second defendant, a minor, a party to the suit. The plaintiff alleges that Ramchandra and the father of the second defendant were partners in the original first defendant firm. Second defendant's father died in December, 1934, leaving the second defendant as his sole heir. The second defendant has filed his written statement and the first contention raised by him is that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and the suit is not maintainable. The learned Counsel appearing for him intimated that the second defendant claims to be an agriculturist within the meaning of Sect...
Emperor Vs. Motiram Bhikoba Marudkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR470
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by a Presidency Magistrate under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149, and sentence to five stripes.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. Under Section 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code no appeal lies from any judgment or order of a criminal Court except as provided for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 411 provides that-Any person convicted on a trial held by a Presidency Magistrate may appeal to the High Court, if the Magistrate has sentenced him to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to fine exceeding two hundred rupees.The sentence here is to receive five stripes, and it is not a sentence of impri- sonment for a term exceeding six months or of fine exceeding two hundred rupees. Therefore from the terms of Sections 404 and 411 it would appear that no appeal lies.3. Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of the appella...
Motiram Bhikoba Marudkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom336
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by a Presidency Magistrate under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C., read with Section 149, and sentenced to five stripes. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. Under Section 404, Criminal P.C., no appeal lies from any judgment or order of a criminal Court except as provided1 for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 411 provides that:Any person convicted on a trial held by a Presidency Magistrate may appeal to the High Court, if the Magistrate has sentenced him to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to fine exceeding two hundred rupees.2. The sentence here is to receive five stripes, and it is not a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding six months of fine exceeding two hundred rupees. Therefore from the terms of Sections 404 and 411 it would appear that no appeal lies.3. Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of the appellant relies on the language of Section 3, Whip...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »