Mumbai Court July 1938 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Karamalli Gulamalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom481; (1938)40BOMLR1092
Broomfield, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out facts of the case proceeded :] The first question which it is necessary to deal with is whether Aziz, who has been examined as the principal witness for the prosecution, is a competent witness and whether his evidence is admissible. The facts to be noted in this connection are these. The charge-sheet was placed before the Court on September 14 and on the same date the prosecution made an application to the Magistrate to make Aziz an approver under Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate declined to entertain this application and no pardon could have been legally tendered as Section 337 does not apply to the facts of the case. The hearing of the case was postponed to September 21, and on that date the prosecution applied that Aziz should be tried separately from the other accused. It was stated in the application that the prosecution desired that Aziz should be examined as a witness and it was prayed therefore that in o...
Tag this Judgment!Pestonjee Bhicajee Vs. Patrick H. Anderson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1
Romer, J.1. By his will dated December 28, 1926, one, John Alexander Anderson, who died in October, 1928, directed that the residue of his estate should be divided into sixteen shares and he bequeathed three of such shares to his nephew C.S. Anderson and Winifred, his wife, and their issue as therein mentioned. By a codicil dated July 22, 1927, the testator revoked that bequest, and in lieu thereof he directed as follows:The income from these three-sixteenths shall as long as C.S. Anderson and Winifred his wife are both alive be divided, two-thirds to the wife and one-third to the husband. If one of them dies his or her share of the income shall belong to their four children or the survivors of them in equal proportions and when the remaining parent dies the capital and income shall belong to the children then living in equal proportions.2. The respondent, Patrick H. Anderson, is one of the four children of C.S. Anderson and his said wife; and the question to be determined upon this ap...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yeshaba Sakhoba Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom463; (1938)40BOMLR927
Norman, J.1. This is a reference from the District Magistrate of Belgaum. The opponent was convicted by the trial Magistrate of offences under Sections 380 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate directed that he should be released on probation of good conduct under Section 562(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned District Magistrate has made the reference on the ground that as the offence under Section 454 is punishable with more than seven years' imprisonment and the opponent was more than twenty-one years old, the Magistrate had no power to act under Section 562(1),2. The District Magistrate's view is correct. But after hearing Mr. Manerikar or behalf of the opponent we are- not satisfied that there was evidence on which the opponent could be convicted. The only evidence against him is that, after another accused had pointed out where the stolen property was concealed, he himself pointed out the same place. That place was a threshing floor which did not belong ...
Tag this Judgment!Anandibai Pandurangrao Bhide Vs. Vasudev Narsingrao Bhide
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom81; (1938)40BOMLR1231
Wassoodew J.1. This appeal arises from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. The question relates to the effect of the plaintiff's adoption by the widow of one Narsingrao Bhide, a Brahmin, upon the devolution of the property or rather the divesting of the property vested in Narsingrao's widowed mother who was in possession thereof as the heir of her deceased husband Pandurangrao. The property in dispute belonged to the said Narsingrao and his father Pandurangrao as members of a Hindu coparcenery. Narsingrao predeceased his father about thirty years ago leaving a widow Saraswatibai and one daughter. Narsingrao's mother Janaki-bai, who survived him, died soon after and Pandurangrao married a second wife Anandibai, who is the defendant in this case. Pandurangrao died within a year after that marriage. The entire property inherited by Anandibai from her husband was in her possession till 1913 when upon the suit of Saraswatibai, the plaintiff's adoptive mother, some port...
Tag this Judgment!Bawa Faquir Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1254
Wright, J.1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on May 28, 1936, by the Special Magistrate of the District of Lahore under Section 120B (conspiracy) and Section 471(using as genuine a forged document known to be forged) of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence was a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years. The conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal. The ground of this appeal is that the Special Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, since it came within the provision of Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and could only be lawfully tried in the circumstances of the case by the High Court or Court of Session. This objection was overruled by a decision of the High Court of Lahore, and in effect it is from that decision that this appeal is brought.2. The facts which are, so far as relevant, not in dispute may be shortly stated. The appellant, an advocate of the High Court, acted as counsel for G.S. Kochar, who was plaintiff in a suit in the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Jivraj Vs. D. Low
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom350; (1939)41BOMLR521
Engineer, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out on behalf of the minor plaintiff for an order that the Sheriff of Bombay do refund to him certain moneys paid to the Sheriff under protest in order to raise an attachment brought on certain goods belonging to the minor plaintiff. The plaintiff's contention is that the decree is not one which can be executed against him.2. The suit was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiff by his next friend Umedmal Genaji. The suit was dismissed with costs. The decree as drawn up says :-' the plaintiff's suit is dismissed and the plaintiff do pay to the defendants their costs of the suit when taxed and noted in the margin hereof.' In execution of this decree for costs the defendants got attached certain goods belonging to the minor plaintiff in the business which he now carries on through a ' munim' who is other than the original next friend. The present application is made on behalf of the plaintiff by his present munim as his new next friend.3. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ismail Umar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom430; (1938)40BOMLR832
Broomfield, J.1. The accused has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence of cutting his wife's nose. He has appealed against the conviction and at the time of admitting the appeal we issued notice to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced.2. The evidence of the wife is that she went to sleep at 10 p. m. on the night in question and woke up suddenly during the night and found the accused slashing at her nose. She cried out and Sadekhan came running up and afterwards he called the police. She says that she and the accused used to quarrel ; but evidently from what she says there had been no quarrel immediately before the accused attacked her. Sadekhan, who is a laundryman living in the same building, says that he heard a woman shouting, went upstairs to the accused's room and found them both, the accused and his wife, there, and the wife was bleeding from the nose and told him that the accused had cut it off. The medical evidence shows that the tip...
Tag this Judgment!Rajlakshmi Dassi Vs. Bholanath Sen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1241
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated March 8, 1935, which affirmed the judgment and decree, dated May 15, 1930, of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24 Parganas on a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) by the Second Land Acquisition Collector Calcutt.2. The question in the appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the compensation money awarded in respect of the acquisition of part of the premises 2, Deb Lane, in the town of Calcutta, as successor to the estate of Raj Ballav Seal, of which the said premises formed part.3. Raj Ballav died on June 10, 1870, leaving him surviving his widow Mati Dassi and three grandsons, who were sons of a predeceased daughter by another wife, of whom one died in 1880 unmarried. Respondent No. 1 is another grandson, and respondent No. 2 represents the third grandson, who died in 1905. The grandsons' line is herei...
Tag this Judgment!Karbalai Gulam Vs. Haji Ebrahim Busheri and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom342; (1939)41BOMLR518
Engineer, J.1. This is a summons for judgment, and the first point that arises is whether as submitted by the defendants the suit as a summary suit is barred by the law of limitation.2. The article applicable in summary suits is Article 5, which as it originally stood, provided a period of one year. That article was amended by an amendment which came into force on January 15, 1938. By this amendment the period of limitation is increased to three years. It is common ground that before January 15, 1938, more than one year had expired from the accrual of the cause of action, so that if the original article applies, the plaintiffs are not at liberty to file this suit as a summary suit. The plaintiffs however contend that the. amendment is retrospective and that the Indian Limitation Act in force when the suit was filed was the Act as amended, and therefore the period of limitation applicable is three years.3. The Indian Limitation Act of 1859 provided by Section 18 that all suits that migh...
Tag this Judgment!The Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Pandit Bishambhar Nath Bajpai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1938
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR968
Wright, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated January 2, 1936, of the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow, dismissing the appeal of the appellant with costs. The 'dismissal was by a majority judgment of two against one.2. The question turns on. the construction of a document of compromise and the true effect in law to be attached to what was done under that document.3. The appellant had recovered judgment by a simple money decree against three defendants in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Unao on October 5, 1926. The amount awarded under that judgment was the sum of Rs. 12,819 with interest at the rate of six per cent, until payment. On January 6, 1927, a compromise was agreed upon between the appellant and the respondent. That compromise was sanctioned by the Subordinate Judge at Unao by an order of February 3, 1927. 4. The difficulty which has arisen is in respect of the true meaning of the compromise and the true effect to be given to the action which was taken unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »