Mumbai Court June 1940 Judgments
Narottamdas Harjivandas and Co. and Manibhai Chhotubhai and Co. Vs. th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom11; (1940)42BOMLR1034
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits against the Municipality of Bulsar. Suit No. 85 of 1936, from which Second Appeal No. 105 arises, was filed by two plaintiffs Messrs. Manibhai Chhotubhai & Co. and Shah Narottamdas Harjivandas &Co.; to recover from the Municipality a sum of Rs. 180 as the price of six bags of sugar, which, it was alleged, were illegally attached and sold by the Municipality for recovery of terminal tax and Rs. 325 by way of damages. The second suit, No. 87 of 1936, was filed by the firm of Shah Narottamdas Harjivandas & Co. for a declaration that the Municipality was not entitled to demand terminal tax or any other tax on goods which were not brought within the limits of the Municipality and to the naka appointed by the Municipality. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed 'for a declaration that the Municipality had no right to demand terminal tax or any other tax on goods landed at the Auranga river or at the Lilapur Dhakka or the Bhadeli Dhakka o...
Tag this Judgment!Mussammat Har Naraini Kunwar Vs. Sajjan Pal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR141
Russell, J.1. In order to explain the reasons why their Lordships think that this appeal should succeed, the barest statement of the relevant facts will be sufficient. One Jiwa Ram made his will dated August 20, 1890, by which, after stating that being a member of a divided family he was the owner of the divided property specified below, he provided that (in the events which happened) his wife Hans Kunwar should 'remain the owner in possession of the entire property left by me like a Hindu widow till her lifetime', and after her death 'all the married and unmarried daughters who be alive or whose male issue be alive shall get the estate acquired, i.e., the property in equal shares.' At the end of the will were specified four items of property of which the first was described as 'ancestral property in mauza Isauli, pargana Jalisar, district Etah--4 biswas out Of 20 biswas.' The other three items were non-ancestral property which had been acquired by the testator. 2. The testator, who ne...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Fulabhai Bhulabhai Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom363; (1940)42BOMLR857
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay from the order of acquittal, passed by the Sessions Judge of Nadiad in appeal, in a case in which the opponents and two others were tried under the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) for performing a child marriage. The opponents were the parents of the bride who was above the; prohibited age. She was married on May 2, 1938, to a husband who was below that age. The latter's father was accused No. 1 and the priest who officiated was accused No. 4 at the trial. Accused No. 1 alone was charged with the offence under Section 6 as a parent who had permitted the child marriage to be solemnized, and the remaining accused including the opponents were charged under Section 5. The learned Magistrate convicted accused No. 1 under Section 6 and the rest under Section 5 of the Act. In, his opinion the opponents, although they are not the parents of the bridegroom, who is a ' child' within the meaning of the Act, were present and ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hasam Mamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom378; (1940)42BOMLR785
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in three cases. The accused were convicted under Section 152 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, their offences consisting of having allowed hand-driven lorries containing fruit to remain for more than half an hour on a public street in Ahmedabad. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the offences did not fall within Section 152. That Section provides that'(1) Whoever in any area after it has become a municipal district, or borough (a) shall have built or set up, or shall build or set up, any wall or any fence, rail, post, stall, verandah, platform, plinth, step or any projecting structure or thing, or other encroachment or obstruction, or (6) shall deposit or cause to be placed or deposited any box, bale, package or merchandise or any other thing, in any public place or street... shall be punished...'2. The question is whether the hand-cart, which the accused had kept in the street,...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bilal Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom361; (1940)42BOMLR787
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Ahmedabad. It appears that certain persons were being prosecuted for an offence under Section s 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. When the complainant, who was a Police Sub-Inspector, was in the witness-box under cross-examination, the accused applied under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code for production of statements recorded by the Sub-Inspector in relation to the offence. It is not clear from the record how those statements came to be recorded. If the police were inquiring into the offence under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code the right to production of the statement would be governed by Section 162. Apparently the learned Magistrate treated the offence as non-cognizable (see Emperor v. Raghunath (1932) 34 Bom. L.R. 901) and the inquiry as not falling under Chapter XIV, and he directed that the statements should be produced under Section 94. The prosecution had not r...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shankaraya Gurushiddayya Hiremath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom365; (1940)42BOMLR777
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are an appeal and an application to confirm the death sentence passed on accused No. 2, and a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a case from the Sessions Court of Belgaum.2. The charge against the six accused was, first, that between January 1, 1938, and December. 31, 1938, they agreed to do an illegal act to wit the murder of Muchkandappa and thereby committed an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Then there is a charge against accused No. 2 that in furtherance of the conspiracy on December 11, 1938, he attempted to murder Muchkandappa by administering arsenic. Then there is a charge against accused No. 2 that on December 14, 1938, he kidnapped Muchkandappa in order that he should be murdered. Then there is a charge against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 that in furtherance of the conspiracy they in fact murdered Muchkandappa on December 14, 1938, by drowning. Then accused No. 1 is charged with abetment of the off...
Tag this Judgment!Yamashetti Bhaushetti Vs. Ashok Bhomshetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Bom391; (1940)42BOMLR895
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by respondent No. 1 against the appellants, who were defendants Nos. 1 to; 4 in the trial Court, to recover by partition a half share in certain moveable and immove-able properties on the ground that he was the adopted son of one Bhomshetti. Bhomshetti, who died about the year 1905, was the brother of defendant No. 1 Yamashetti. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1. Bhomshetti died in union with his brother Yamashetti. The plaintiff alleged that he had been adopted by Janakibai, the widow of Bhomshetti, who was defendant No. 5 in the case, on December 13, 1932. The parties are Jains. The plaintiff's case was that at the time of Bhomshetti's death his wife, defendant No. 5, was pregnant. Bhomshetti told his wife at the time of his death that if she gave birth to a daughter she should take that daughter's son in adoption. A daughter was born to Bhomshetti after his death and in accordance with the direction o...
Tag this Judgment!Arjuno Naiko Vs. Modonomohono Naiko
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1148
Russell, J.1. This appeal is brought by some of the defendants to a suit in which one Modonomohono Naiko was the plaintiff. The suit, in form a suit for partition, was in reality brought for the purpose of establishing that the plaintiff, as the adopted son of one Horikrushno deceased, was entitled to succeed to the Sirdarship of Gondhadharo which had been held and enjoyed by Horikrushno in his lifetime. After Horikrushno's death (which occurred on April 5, 1924), questions arose as to the succession, and as to whether the plaintiff was in fact the adopted son of the late Sirdar. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported adversely to the plaintiff's claim; but the Board of Revenue having considered the evidence then adduced, most properly thought that the question was too complicated for a Revenue Court to decide, and directed that the petitioner (i.e., the plaintiff) should establish his claim in a competent civil Court. The present suit was accordingly instituted on August 3, 1927, in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Khulna Limited Vs. Jyoti Prokash Mitra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1139
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and two. decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated, June 24, 1936, which set aside a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna dated September 29, 1934, and dismissed the appellant's mortgage suit.2. The present suit was instituted by the appellant on March 31, 1930, for recovery of the principal and interest due under a mortgage deed dated March 18, 1925, executed by Nirod Bashini Mitra, a Hindu married woman, Bhuban Mohan Mitra, her husband, and Jnan Prokas Mitra, her eldest son, for a loan of Rs. 28,000, on the security of certain agricultural lands and a dwelling house, all of which belonged to Nirod Bashini Mitra in her absolute title. The original defendants were Nirod Bashini Mitra as defendant No. 1, her husband as defendant No. 2, and her eldest son as defendant No. 3.3. Defendant No. 1 died on March 18,1932, and defendant No. 2 died on October 22, 1933. They left three sons; the eld...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahomed HusseIn Abdul Kadar Shaikh Bhikan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR742
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Additional Court, Mazagaon.2. The facts are that on January 27, 1940, the present applicant was directed to pay Rs. 25 a month to his wife and Rs. 25 a month to her in respect of his son for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The maintenance was to ran from the date of the petition, so that there were considerable arrears. The application seems to have been fought very bitterly, the husband maintaining that he had not got any means. However, the Magistrate did not believe that story. The maintenance was not paid, and on February 17, an application was made for a distress warrant, and on February 23 a warrant was issued. That was under Sub-section (3) of Section 488 which provides that if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »