Mumbai Court February 1938 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Trimbak Damodar Herlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom352; (1938)40BOMLR495
Divatia, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharwar City, under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There were two accused in the case. The first accused is the son and the second accused is his mother. Accused No. 1 is congenitally deaf and dumb. He was charged under Section 262 of the Indian Penal Code for fraudulently or intentionally causing loss to the Government by using an already used postal stamp and accused No. 2 had been charged also under Section 262, Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative for abetment of the said offence. The learned Magistrate on the evidence was of opinion that both the accused were guilty and he convicted both of them with the offence with which they were charged.2. [His Lordship dealt with the case of accused No. 1, and, after examining evidence against him, stated,] We are therefore not satisfied that the accused knew the nature of the act that he was doing. We therefore give him the benefit of that doubt and dir...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay Vs. Vasantlal Fulchand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom360; (1938)40BOMLR497
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kania. The plaintiffs are the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, and they are suing on a covenant for payment of rent contained in a lease. The lease was dated March 13, 1923, and was made between the trustees of the Bombay Improvement Trust, to whose rights the plaintiffs have succeeded by statute, as lessors, and the original defendants as lessees. It is a lease for nine-hundred and ninety-nine years and contains a covenant by the lessees to pay the rent reserved during the term, and it is to be noted that there is no covenant against assignment of the lease.2. On December 17, 1930, the lease was assigned by the lessees to one Daya-bhai. Dayabhai omitted to pay the rent due under the lease, and on December 17, 1931, the lessors forfeited the lease. Subsequently the lessors sued Dayabhai for rent due down to the date of forfeiture and recovered judgment against him, but that judgment remains unsatisf...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Choukhani and Sailendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR787
Wright, J.1. These two consolidated appeals depend substantially on the same issues of fact and involve the same questions of law. They were brought by special leave of His Majesty in Council in order to obtain a decision on the true effect of Section 239 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which provides that persons who are accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. The question has been whether the correctness of the joinder which depends on the sameness of the transaction is to be determined by looking at the accusation or by looking at the result of the trial. Certain subsidiary questions have also been raised as affecting the validity of the trial and conviction. These are not matters which would justify special leave to appeal being granted upon the principles which this Board have adopted in guiding this discretion in criminal matters, and should not have been brought before this Board, but, as the ques...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yarmahomed Ahmedkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom338; (1938)40BOMLR483
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 128 of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who imposed a fine of Rs. 201. Section 128 of the City of Bombay Police Act provides :-Whoever, within two years from the date of his removal under the provisions of Section 27 returns to any place within the City of Bombay, without the permission in writing of the Commissioner of Police, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 2. The appellant admits that on November 2, 1936, an order was made by the Commissioner of Police purporting to act under Section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act, under which the appellant was removed from Bombay. He further admits that he returned to Bombay within two years from the date of such removal; but he contends that the order which the Commissioner of Police purported to pass under Section 27 of the Act was no...
Tag this Judgment!Subraya Kuppa Joshi Vs. Timmanna Subraya Bhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom508; (1938)40BOMLR1001
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the appellants as plaintiffs under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for an account of two mortgages. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Courts on the ground that the mortgages are no longer subsisting.2. The mortgages refer to seven lots of land. Lots 1, 2 and 3 were mortgaged in 1900 and lots 4 to 7 were mortgaged in 1902. The mortgagees under these two mortgages transferred their rights to Venkamma, the mother of defendant No. 2, in 1921 and 1923 respectively. Some years before this, viz. in 1905, the plaintiffs' father purchased lots 3 and 4 at an execution sale. That is to say, he purchased the equity of redemption in these two lots. Shortly before this suit was brought, viz. on September 27, 1929, the father of defendant No. 1, who was the only survivor in the family of the mortgagors, redeemed both mortgages by a payment of Rs. 2,900 to defendant No. 2. Then the plaintiffs brought their suit for a...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Pratapgir Narsingirji Vs. the Official Liquidator, Prahlad Mills ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom351; (1938)40BOMLR470
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a motion asking for security for costs of the original hearing and additional security for the costs of the appeal. The original application from which the appeal arose was an application to set aside an order in winding up, which was refused, and the appeal is against such refusal. The applicants ask for further security, and contend that the Court is bound to direct further security to be given, since the appellant is residing out of British India and is not possessed of sufficient immoveable property within British India, and, therefore, it is argued that the proviso to Order XLI, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code, applies. On the other hand, the Advocate General for the respondent contends that Order XLI, Rule 10, has no appli cation to appeals from decrees or orders made on the original side, and for that proposition he relies on a decision of this Court in Behram Jung (Nawab) v. Haji Sultan Ali Shustry I.L.R. (1912) Bom. 572 : 14 Bom. L.R. 11...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanarajagirji Vs. Raja Panuganti Parthasarathi Rayanim Varu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1057
George Rankin, J.1. In this ease three appeals have been consolidated. They arise out of an account taken in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore under an Order of His Majesty in Council dated June 25, 1924, decreeing a suit for redemption of a mortgage Narasingerji Gyonagerji v. Panuganti Parthasaradhi . The suit had been brought in that Court on August 27, 1915, by three persons who had acquired the rights of the mortgagor the then Raja of Kalahasti in the suit lands under an execution sale in February, 1915. One of them has since died but they may be referred to collectively as ' the plaintiffs.' The person sued as mortgagee was the first defendant, and the Raja of Kalahasti was the second. As the latter was only a formal party and took no part in contesting the suit, the first defendant, though now dead and represented by his son, will be referred to herein as the defendant.2. Execution proceedings under the Order in Council were begun by execution petition No. 63 of 1924 ...
Tag this Judgment!Raichand Chunilal Vs. Rahi Nana Gade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom46; (1938)40BOMLR1211
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Barlee by which the learned Judge held that the appeal was out of time when it was filed in the District Court against the decree made by the Joint Subordinate Judge of Nasik. The material dates are as follows : On November 11, 1932, the appellant obtained a decree on a mortgage-bond in his favour, but part of his claim was rejected by the Subordinate Judge. He appealed from that part of the decision on December 23, 1932. It is clear, therefore, on the face of it that the appeal was barred. The period of thirty days allowed under Article 152 of the Indian Limitation Act for filing an appeal expired on December 11, 1932. That day, however, was a Sunday and on the next day, that is on December 12, the appellant applied for copies. The copies were ready on December 22, and he filed his appeal on. December 23. The District Judge held that the time had expired and dismissed the appeal. This decision was conf...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Pitamberdas Khatri Vs. Dahyabhai Chhaganlal Vyas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom448; (1938)40BOMLR898
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revisional application against an order made by the Small Cause Court Judge of Ahmedabad. The facts are that on December 11, 1935, the plaintiff obtained a decree ex parte against the defendant for Rs. 126. The defendant applied to set aside the ex parte decree under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and on that application the present opponent became a surety for the defendant. Subsequently, the ex parte decree was set aside, and the suit was re-heard and resulted again in a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The question is, whether the surety is liable for the amount for which the decree was ultimately given in favour of the plaintiff, or whether he is only liable for the amount under the original decree, which decree was set aside. The learned Judge held that as the ex parte decree was set aside, the surety was discharged.2. Now, the suretyship bond was taken under the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondo Narayan Shiralkar Vs. Annaji Pandurang Kokatnur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom442; (1938)40BOMLR895
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made in appeal by the District Judge of Belgaum. The case is rather a peculiar one. The plaintiff was entitled to a mortgage executed by defendant No. 1, and he instituted this suit to recover the amount due, claiming that the amount due under the mortgage was Rs. 2,268-6-3. The Second Class Subordinate Judge of Athni passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,747-1-2. The defendants then appealed to the District Court, and in appeal the Assistant Judge held that accounts ought to be taken between the parties under Section 13 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and he, therefore, referred the matter back to the lower Court to take the accounts on that basis. The lower Court then appointed a commissioner to take the accounts, and the commissioner held that a sum of about Rs. 11,000 was due on the mortgage, that is to say, he largely increased the amount which the learned Judge had held to be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »