Mumbai Court November 1940 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Biram Sardar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR157
John Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused, other than accused No. 6, who were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of East Khandesh under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, appeal against their convictions. We are indebted to Mr. R.R. Desai, who has represented the accused as amicus curix for the industry he has devoted to the case and the ability with which he has presented it.2. The case has some peculiar features. All the accused, except accused No. 18, are from the village of Savkheda in taluka Yaval, and it appears that on March 5, 1940, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Yaval received information that a dacoity was contemplated that night at the village of Shirsoli, taluka Jalgaon. So he went to Jalgaon and reported to the Sub-Inspector of Police there and put in a written report, which is exhibit 8, in which he mentioned the names of the nineteen men who, he was informed, were going to commit the dacoity. The Sub-Inspector of Police of Jalgaon and the City Sub-Inspect...
Tag this Judgment!Mancherji Pallonji Contractor Vs. Dinbai Nusserwanji Goawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom260; (1941)43BOMLR543
Blackwell, J.1. The plaintiffs bring this suit to recover rents in respect of the properties covered by a lease, exhibit A, which is admitted, and in respect of certain other properties let to the defendants for the months of March and April, 1940, amounting to Rs. 3,400 and also to recover a surra of Rs. 3,357-1-0 alleged to be payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs in respect of certain municipal and other taxes in accordance with the provisions of the lease.2. In paragraph 3 of the written statement of defendant No. 2, who alone appears to defend the suit, an agreement alleged to have been come to between the plaintiffs and the original defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 on March 12, 1940, at the office of the plaintiffs' attorneys is set out, under which it is alleged that the time for payment of the amounts claimed in this suit was postponed, and that this suit is premature.3. Defendant No. 2 also alleges in paragraph 1 of his written statement that on a true construction of...
Tag this Judgment!Bapugouda Yadgouda Patil Vs. Vinayak Sadashiv Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom317; (1941)43BOMLR706
Broomfield, J.1. This is a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to a Hindu temple of Shree Kalleshwar at Mangur in the Chikodi taluka. The plaintiffs are residents of Mangur claiming an interest in the institution. In the plaint they have given an account of what they say is the history of the temple and the circumstances leading to the suit. There are three fields which form the endowment. The management of the property at first belonged to the village officers and in 1883, after an official inquiry, a committee of management was formed, consisting of the officiating patil and kulkarni and three other residents of the village. This committee functioned till 1893. After 1893 a member of the Kulkarni family, who was not officiating, acted as manager, and in 1899, when Yadagouda, father of defendant No. 4, ceased to be officiating revenue patil and his son defendant No, 4 was appointed as deputy, he still continued to be a manager of the institution. The panchas who...
Tag this Judgment!Dossabhoy Jamshetji Nanporia Vs. Edulji Sorabji Daruvala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom192; (1941)43BOMLR336
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application made under Rule 132 of the Appellate Side Rules complaining against the order of the Taxing Officer.2. The point raised is a novel one. In a second appeal the respondent appeared by an attorney and an advocate on the Original Side; that is to say, the advocate on the Original Side was instructed by an attorney who was not an advocate on the Appellate Side. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the contention of Mr. Moropanth for the applicant is that in such a case no costs are payable either to the attorney or to the advocate on the Original Side. It is very common for parties to appear in Appellate Side matters by an attorney instructing an advocate on the Original Side, and it is somewhat startling to hear it suggested that in such an event no costs are payable by the unsuccessful party either to the attorney or to the advocate. In my opinion, there is no substance in the point.3. Under the Rules on the Appellate Side, Part II, relatin...
Tag this Judgment!GulamhusseIn Alibhoy Jariwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom152
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, under Section 10, Mussalman Wakf Act (42 of 1928), for failure to comply with Sections 3 and 5 of the said Act. The facts are not in dispute so far as they are material for the present purpose. The accused with others collected monies from Dawoodi Bohras at Sunnel, which is in the Indore State, for the purpose of building a madressa at Sunnel, and a madressa was duly built. On 26th February 1932, the trustees of the madressa purchased an immovable property at Bhoiwada in Bombay out of the funds belonging to the madressa, and on 7th December 1934, they executed a declaration of trust, which is Ex.D, admitting that they had purchased the Bhoiwada property out of monies colcted from Dawoodi Bohras at Sunnel for the support of a madressa at Sunnel, and declaring that they held the property upon trust, in substance, for the madressa. The appellant was called upon to deliver a...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Channappa Tambrali Vs. Ramsing Jessasing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom160; (1941)43BOMLR236
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to stay a suit which has been instituted on the Original Side of this Court until the decision of a previously instituted suit in the Sholapur First Class Subordinate Judge's Court.2. Mr. Coltman who appears for the opponents has taken a preliminary objection that the application should be made on the Original Side. We think he is right. He relies on Rule 344 of the High Court Original Side Rules. But in our opinion the matter is made sufficiently clear by the language of Section 10 itself. The section provides that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. It is a reasonable inference in our opinion that an application asking the Court not to proceed with the trial should normally be made to the Court which is actually seized of the case. According to my experience...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji Hormasji Lakdavala Vs. the Broach Borough Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR533
Wassoodew, J.1. These two appeals arise from the judgments of the District Judge of Broach. The dispute relates to the legality of the levy of license fees from the appellants under a rule which is No. 208 (a) passed by the Broach City Municipality and sanctioned by Government on July 2, 1934. The plaintiffs, in the two suits Nos. 330 and 331 of 1934, from, which these appeals arise, are respectively traders in fire-wood and charcoal, and manufacturers and sellers of sweetmeats and confectionary, and carry on their business within the Broach Borough Municipal limits. They alleged that the Municipality proposed to levy yearly a license fee according to the new rule upon their trade and claimed a declaration that the Municipality had no right to recover any sum whatever from them under the pretext of license fees particularly when the avowed object of the levy was to enable the Municipality to meet educational expenses, They also claimed injunction against the Municipality preventing tha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Basangouda Yamanappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR144
John Beaumont, C.J.1. These are three appeals by the three accused against their convictions by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dharwar of the offence of murder, and there is an application to confirm the death sentences which the learned Judge passed upon all of them.2. The facts established by the prosecution are these. The murdered woman was one Mallava, who was aged about sixty-five. She and her daughter-in-law Gangava and the latter's son used to live in the Jamkhandi-math in the village of Hulgur. But Gangava had some time back opened a hotel about a mile away from the math, and she and her son thereafter lived in the hotel. Mallava used to go there in the day time to take her meals, but she went back to sleep at night in the math, and Gangava's son used to go to the math every day and spend part of his time with Mallava. On the night of March 25 last Mallava went back from the hotel to the math, and the next morning, when Gangava's son went to the math, he found that Mallava ha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dawood Hasham
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom123; (1941)43BOMLR245
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This case comes before the Court on a certificate of the Advocate General given under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. He considers that the question, whether the learned Judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the jury, is a question of law which requires to be considered by this Court.2. The case in question was tried by Mr. Justice Lokur and a special jury, and in it three accused were charged with murder and abetment of murder. The actual murder was charged against accused No. 1, and abetment of murder against accused Nos. 2 and 3.3. The material facts, which the jury accepted, appear sufficiently from the certificate of the Advocate-General. The murdered man, Hussain Aiman, and his son Noor Mahomed were living in a house in Bhisti Moholla, and on January 22, 1939, about 11 p.m., Noor Mahomed was returning to his house, when he was abused, by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a man named Hasham who were si...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Kashinath Sakhare Vs. Dattatraya Vishvanath Sulakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom209; (1941)43BOMLR341
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Sholapur. The only question that arises upon this appeal is whether a plaintiff, who is held not to be an agriculturist at the date of the suit purporting to be one for redemption under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, can invoke the provisions of Section 10A of that Act to show that the original transaction to which his predecessor an agriculturist was a party was in reality intended, contrary to the terms of the document, to be treated as a mortgage.2. The suit was instituted in August, 1930, by the plaintiff as the adopted son of one Kashinath, the adoption having been made by Kashinath's widow in 1924. The plaintiff maintained that his father Kashinath, who died in 1909, had executed a formal conveyance of the property in dispute on February 11, 1899, in favour of the defendants, and that, although it was an out and out sale of the entire interest of the transferor, by. a contemporaneous agreem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »