Mumbai Court July 1941 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.
Emperor Vs. Ningapa Ramappa Kurbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR864
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum directing under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the prosecution of the applicants for an offence of giving false evidence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case, to my mind, raises an important question as to the principles on which the Court should sanction a prosecution in cases of this kind. Under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Court must be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, which includes offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code; so that we have to be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that there should be a prosecution.3. The facts are that the applicants made a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging, in some detail, that they had w...
Sri Sri Baidyanathji Vs. Srimatt Urmila Devi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR183
Russell, J.1. The only question which their Lordships have to determine in this appeal is whether the properties of the Baidyanath temple were vested in trust in the high priest of the temple within the meaning of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX) of 1908. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the appellant's suit is not barred by any length of time and this appeal must succeed.2. The suit was brought in the name of the deity of the temple, through the present high priest, against respondent No. 1 (who is the widow and executrix of the late high priest), to recover from her the principal moneys amounting to Rs. 4,200 due on certain war bonds (which formed part of the temple properties, but were retained by the widow as such executrix), together with a sum of interest thereon amounting to Rs. 2,577-8-0.3. The suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar who, on June 28, 1935, ordered and decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the widow R...
Tikait Umed NaraIn Singh Vs. the Equitable Coal Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR188
Russell, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which affirmed the judgment of the trial Judge. The suit was brought against the Equitable Coal Co., Ltd., for the recovery of certain demised land, together with mesne profits, upon the footing that upon the true construction of a lease to that company, and in the events which had happened, the first appellant, Tekait Umed Narain Singh (hereinafter called the appellant), as successor-in-title to the grantor of the lease, was entitled to recover khas possession.2. The lease in question was dated October 29, 1872, and was granted to the company by one Sidhanath, the owner of the Gadi Karharbari estate, of which the demised lands formed pArticle While he was still a minor his guardians had entered into an arrangement with the company on July 4, 1864, under which the company had entered into possession of the lands in question. This transaction was evidenced by two registered documents of that date, a...
Ramu Bala Sankpal Vs. Jana Dala Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR920
Macklin, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by an adopted son against certain alienees to have the alienations made by his adoptive mother before his adoption set aside on the ground that they were not made for legal necessity. The defence alleged that there was in fact legal necessity and that the adoption of the plaintiff, if proved, was invalid, because his mother was unchaste, and an unchaste widow according to Hindu law is not competent to adopt. Both the Courts have found want of legal necessity. The trial Court found that the unchastity of the plaintiff's adoptive mother, which admittedly resulted in the birth to her of an illegitimate son more than twenty years before the adoption and some four years after her husband's death, had in fact ceased before the adoption took place. It also found that even on the assumption that she was still unchaste at the time of the adoption, the unchastity would not have the effect of making the adoption invalid, because in th...
Emperor Vs. Karsan Jesang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR858
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Kairal asking us to set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code by the First Class Magistrate of Mehmedabad, on the ground that the case was only triable by a Court of Session.2. It appears that the accused made a false charge to the police that certain persons had been guilty of dacoity. The police inquired into the matter, and came to the conclusion that the charge was false, and they, therefore, obtainedB' summary, and the present accused was then prosecuted under Section 211. Now, that section is divided into two parts: the first part provides that whoever, with the intent specified, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, shall be punished, as therein mentioned. That part of the section, it will be noted, refers both to instituting criminal proceedings and to ...
The Government of Bombay Vs. Mathurdas Laljibhai Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR405
Divatia, J.1. These are all companion appeals in which there is one common question of law. That question is whether the sanad, exhibit 24, amounted to an agreement between the Government and the occupants and as such was not capable of being cancelled by the Government, before the expiry of the period of fifty years specified in the sanad. The lower appellate Court has held, differing from the trial Court, that it is an agreement which is not capable of being cancelled before the expiry of the term, and I agree with that conclusion. Whether the sanad be taken to have been given under Section 65 or under Section 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the point would be the same.2. It is contended on behalf of the Government that under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code it would be competent to the Government to modify the terms of the sanad at any time. That argument is urged on the basis that the sanad is tantamount to a decision of a revenue officer. But it has been recently he...
Kuberdas Devchand Soni Vs. Jerkish Naoroji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR981
Macklin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. In 1925 one Navroji Pestonji died leaving three children and a widow, by name Tehemina. In November, 1927, Tehemina was given letters of administration to his estate, and in 1929, purporting to act for herself and as guardian of her minor son, she mortgaged certain property to her brother Temulji for Rs. 4,000. In March, 1931, she executed in favour of the plaintiff the mortgage in suit, this time purporting to act for herself and her three minor children. The purpose of the mortgage was said to be the need to pay off the mortgage to her brother, and indeed the old mortgage was endorsed as satisfied on the day of the execution of the new mortgage. In 1934 she died, and another of her brothers, by name Bejanji, became guardian of her minor children. In 1936 the plaintiff brought the present suit. He alleged in his plaint that after Tehemina had taken out letters of administration and obtained property thereunder, including ...
Bai Kokilabai Vs. Keshavlal Mangaldas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR985
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, preferred by the workman against the opposite party, whom I will refer to as the 'selling agents.'2. The facts found are that the selling agents are the sole selling agents of the Sassoon Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd., whom I will refer to as the 'mill company,' under an agreement dated January 7, 1939. By Clause 3 of that agreement the selling agents have to procure orders for the sale of the mill company's cloth, and under Clause 6 it is provided that the mill company shall store their manufactured cloth in their godowns and give delivery orders of such portions as the selling agents shall require to the selling agents. Then Clause 7 provides that the selling agents shall sell the goods so delivered to them at a shop in Bombay, and Clause 8 provides that the selling agents shall take delivery of the; goods from the mill company's godowns at their own expense. So that what it comes to under th...
Atmaram Nemchand Gujar Vs. Mallappa Appayya Kotiwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR880
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This second appeal raises a short point of law, namely, whether an application made to the Court to record a part payment of a decretal debt under Order XXI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is a step-in-aid of execution, which will prevent, limitation running under Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Acticle 1908.2. The facts shortly are that there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff dated July 11, 1932, and on June 30, 1935, a part payment was made by the defendants of the amount due under the decree, and on September 16, 1935, the plaintiff applied to the Court to certify the part payment, and the Court acceded to the application. This darkhast was issued on November 8, 1935, more than three years from the date of the decree. The question is whether the application of September 16, 1935, is a step-in-aid of execution under Article 182(5) of the fndian Limitation Act so as to save limitation.3. In Bacharaj Nyahalchand v. Babaji Tukaram (1913) I.L.R. 3...
The Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Venka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR916
Kania, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover from the defendants Rs. 4,625 and interest. Between December 14, 1938, and February 16, 1939, defendant No. 1 drew on defendant No. 2 five bills of exchange, in all for Rs. 4,600, in favour of the plaintiffs. The said bills were endorsed over by the plaintiffs in favour of Nudengadi Bank of Calicut for collection and when presented to defendant No. 2 were accepted by him. On the due date, however, he dishonoured the same by non-payment. Thereafter there were certain discussions about the payment which are found in the letters exchanged between the parties. As a result of that correspondence defendant No. 1 drew eight bills of exchange on defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. Three of them when presented to defendant No. 2 were accepted by him. He honoured one only by payment but dishonoured the other two. The remaining five bills were dishonoured by non-acceptance. These eight bills were for Rs. 4,875. Defendant No. 2 had ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »