Mumbai Court December 1939 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.
Karson Champsi Vs. Meghji Asaria Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR917
Blackwell, J1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts of the case as above, continued:] Mr. Daphtary for defendants Nos. 7 and 8 to the counter-claim has referred to Mayer v. Murray (1878) 8 Ch. D. 424 which is an authority for the proposition that in an action for account by a mortgagor against a mortgagee in possession who has sold, the mortgagor is entitled to an account of the proceeds of sale received by the mortgagee or by his order or for his use, ' or which without his wilful default might have been so received ', although wilful default may not have been charged in the pleadings and proved at the trial. Jessel M.R. in the course of his judgment said that the general rule is that in every case an order charging wilful default must be based upon a charge of wilful default in the pleadings, but that the case of a mortgagee in possession has always been an exception to that rule, and he expressed the opinion that a mortgagee in possession must account for what without his wilf...
Emperor Vs. Asgaralli Mahammedalli Heralwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR203
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicant under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act of 1887.2. The applicant was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Godhra, and the question of law which arises is whether a special warrant can be issued under Section 6 of the Gambling Act by the Additional Superintendent of Police of Broach and Panch Mahals. The position of such Additional Superintendent of Police is this. Originally Broach and Panch Mahals were separate revenue districts, but in 1933 they were amalgamated. But, as appears from the Government Resolution of January 3, 1934, it was not considered advisable to amalgamate the two police charges, and accordingly it was provided that the Panch Mahals should be retained as a separate police charge under the control of an Additional Police Superintendent; and that position is still maintained.3. Now an Additional Superintendent of Police can be appointed ...
Emperor Vs. Sonappa Shina Shetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR205
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against the accused's conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, under Section s 326 and 109 read with Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code. The case raises a question on the construction of Section 111.2. The facts are that the present applicant and two others considered that they had a moral claim on a man named Ichhanna to extract Rs. 10 from him, and they were proceeding to extract those ten rupees by force. The present applicant and a man named Shanta beat Ichhanna with their fists, and another man named Sunderrao threatened him with a knife. Thereupon Ichhanna's companion, the complainant, intervened, and Sunderrao with his knife stabbed him on the ear and inflicted grievous hurt. Sunderrao has been convicted, and the question is whether the present applicant is guilty of that assault on the complainant by virtue of Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Section 111 provides that when an act is abetted and a d...
Motichand Hirachand Gujar Vs. Khudabaksh Gulamhusen Tambatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom255; (1940)42BOMLR462
Kania, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Sen. The present appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit filed in the Ahmed-nagar Court, The plaint was to obtain possession of a certain site of land admeasuring 45'-10' X 39'-5', being part of survey No. 5578, Municipal No. 5624. The defendants are representatives of a Masjid and the suit was filed against them in that character. Three issues were raised. The first was whether the plaintiffs prove their ownership to the plaint property, and (2) whether the plaintiffs prove their possession within twelve years before the suit. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs both these issues and held that the property claimed belonged to the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred against that decision to the District Court of Ahmednagar where also similar issues were framed and answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Original defendants preferred a second appeal and persuaded Mr. Justice Sen to hold on a peru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›