Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR1581
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the accused Shaikh Usman Shaikh Umar was tried on charges under Sections 277 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Nandurbar, and the convictions and sentences have been upheld by the District Magistrate, West Khandesh.2. It appears that on December 14, 1926, the prosecution case was finished, the charge was framed, and after the examination of the accused the ease was adjourned to December 22, 1926. On December 15, 1926, an application was made on behalf of the accused requesting that he should be furnished with the copies of the statements of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code as he had to cross-examine the witnesses on December 22, 1926, and stating that he would not be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses unless the copies were given to him, The Police Prosecutor made an endorsement on the application that he objected to the copies being granted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Bom19
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the District Judge of Thana The appellants (plaintiffs below) allege in their plaint that they and the respondents are fishermen; that, in accordance with the custom of their trade, they have been for years erecting their fishing stakes annually opposite to the village of Yerangal, at a distance of between two and three miles from the coast, those of the respondents being to the north of, and about 600 feet distant from, their own; that in the month of March 1872, the respondents, in addition to their customary stakes to the north, maliciously and wrongfully erected other fishing stakes to the south, at a distance of only 120 feet from those of the appellants, and that thereby they wrongfully disturbed the latter in the enjoyment of their right to fish, and unjustifiably prevented fish from getting into their nets, thus causing them considerable pecuniary loss. They, therefore, claim from the respondents Rs. 3,000 as damage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom86; (1934)36BOMLR68; 150Ind.Cas.467
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This suit started as long ago as 1920. It was a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who claimed a sum of about Rs. 79,000 odd, as being due to them by the defendants, for acting as commission agents to the defendants to buy and sell piece-goods.2. The defendants in their written statement alleged that no proper accounts had been delivered, that the plaintiffs had committed various breaches of duty as agents, and the defendants said that they would pay what was due, but that the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was not due.3. In 1924 the matter was referred to the Commissioner for taking Accounts to take an account of the dealings and transactions between the parties. The matter proceeded before the Commissioner, or rather before three different Commissioners, for a period of five years ; and on June 22, 1929, the Commissioner made his report. On July 11, 1929, the plaintiffs took out exceptions to that report; and on September 27, 1932, the learned Judge made his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 137Ind.Cas.9; (1932)62MLJ742
Reilly, J.1. In connection with Referred Trial No. 173 of 1931 the following question has been referred to us, vis.:Does the expression 'statement made by any person' in Clause (1) of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code include statements by persons accused of the offence under investigation?2. The reference has been made: because objection has been taken at the hearing of the Referred Trial to the admission of evidence that certain statements were made by the accused which the learned judges, Waller and Krishnan Pandalai, JJ., describe as statements made 'to the Police directly or indirectly through strangers in the presence of the Police' in the course of the Police investigation of the case when the accused were not in custody. In Sheik Kalesha v. Emperor (1931) 62 M.L.J.71 Jackson and Cornish, JJ., decided that a statement made by an accused person to the1 Police in the course of their investigation of the case could not be used at the trial for any purpose. In that case the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom353; (1943)45BOMLR707
Sen, J.1. The appellants are the sons of one Parsharam Mahadev Namjoshi, opponent No. 3 in Darkhast Not 452 of 1937 filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Devrukh by one Bhagwat, respondent No. 1, in execution of a decree passed in the latter's favour on June 7, 1927, against opponents Nos. 1 and 2, judgment-debtors, named Vishnu Laxman Joshi and Ramakrishna Laxman Joshi. Bhagwat had been one of the Joshis' creditors and his claim was referred to arbitration, an award made and a decree passed in regular civil suit No. 80 of 1927. The decree directed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 should pay to the plaintiff the principal amount of Rs. 2,178 within five years with interest at six per cent. per annum, that the past interest of Rs. 272 should be paid within a year from the date of the decree, and that if the defendants committed default in payment of this amount of interest in time, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the whole amount payable by the sale of certain immoveable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom434; (1934)36BOMLR761
Divatia, J.1. These four companion appeals have been filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council, who was the principal defendant in each suit, and the original plaintiff is the principal respondent in each appeal. The plaintiff is the khot or lessee to whose ancestor the village of Mahul, situated in Trombay in the island of Salsette, forming part of the district of Thana, had been granted by the British Government, part in inam and the remainder in permanent khoti, i. e., lease subject to certain conditions stated in a sanad or a kowl dated April 20, 1831. It is this document which is the most important one in all the appeals, the decision of which mainly turns on the construction of its terms. Of these four appeals, First Appeals Nos. 137 and 139 of 1927 arise from two suits filed in 1922 by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was entitled to take royalty in respect of removal of earth, stone, murum and cutting of teak trees in certain lands of the village in virtue of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom247; (1935)37BOMLR376
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two cross-appeals from judgments of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. In the suit from which Appeal No. 477 is brought, the plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that they are permanent tenants of the suit land, whilst Appeal No. 471 is an appeal in a suit brought by the landlord, defendant in the first suit, claiming possession of the suit property on the ground that the plaintiffs are annual tenants. So that the real point in both appeals is whether the plaintiffs in the first suit are permanent tenants op annual tenants.2. For the purposes of determining the plaintiffs' title, the suit land is divisible into two parts, the claim of the plaintiffs being different in respect of those two parts. There is, first, the property shown on the exhibited plan within the parallelogram A B C D, which I will refer to as the 'A property,' and then there is the rest of the suit property, partly to the north and partly to the south of the A property,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom264; (1927)29BOMLR332; 101Ind.Cas.403
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties are Hindus. The wife pleads that she has been abandoned and deserted by her husband, that he has remarried a second wife-a girl of seven or eight-that he has refused to maintain the defendant or to take her back, and that when she threatened him with a summons for maintenance he retorted by bringing this suit, which is not bona fide, and, accordingly, the Court should not grant any relief.2. At the trial the defendant tendered evidence in support of her defence, but both the Courts below rejected it on the ground that it affords no defence in law. Accordingly, for the purposes of this appeal we must take it as if all the statements in the written statement were admitted and that yet-according to the plaintiff- they would afford no defence in law to a suit of this nature.3. We have had an interesting discussion as to the origin of a suit of this description. Admittedly, its origin is no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1918Bom217; (1918)20BOMLR481
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an application in execution of a decree, and the facts and dates relevant to the appeal are these. The parties having referred their dispute to arbitration, an award was made by the arbitrators. On the 17th November 1897, the following order was made by the learned Subordinate Judge : 'The plaintiff sues to obtain a decree on an award filed with the plaint. The defendants admit the claim. I order that the award be filed and a decree passed in accordance therewith.' But the only attempt made by the Court to draw up the decree thus ordered is recorded in the following direction which was given on the 17th November 1897: ' This suit coming on for final hearing on the 17th November 1897 before Rao Bahadur Gangadharrao Vishnu Limaye, First Class Subordinate Judge, in the presence of Mr. Vithalrao Kulkarni, pleader on behalf of plaintiff and of Mr. Bhaskarrao Manerikar, pleader on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, it is ordered that the award be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1925Bom527; (1925)27BOMLR1122; 90Ind.Cas.685
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000 claimed to be due on three hundis drawn by the defendants on one Chhotaram Javer in Bombay payable to Shah which were handed over to the plaintiff. Various objections were raised in the written statement, one of which regarding the non-cancellation of the stamps on two of the hundis was successful. The other objections were disallowed, and the Judge passed a decree against the defendant on the third hundi for Rs. 5,000.2. The same objections have been raised before us. The first objection was that the suit was time-barred The defendants in the plaint were described as 'Shivlal Rampranad a firm doing business as merchants at Ahmedabad,' and thereafter, when it was discovered that Shivlal Ramprasad was a joint Hindu family doing business under that name, and that the provisions of Order XXX (Civil Procedure Code) would not apply when defendants were members of an undivided Hindu family, the title o...
Tag this Judgment!