Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom363; (1936)38BOMLR632; 165Ind.Cas.672
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr, Justice Black-well. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants as the sureties upon an administration bond, and the learned Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue of limitation.2. The facts are not in dispute. On October 21, 1920, one Chunilal Motilal died intestate, leaving two minor sons, who are the plaintiffs. On July 14, 1921, leave was given to Nathalal Motilal to apply for letters of administration. On November 24, 1921, the said Nathalal Motilal, and the defendants, as sureties, entered into a bond, which is exhibit A, for payment to Pheroz Behramji Malabari, Registrar of this Court in its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, and William J. Howard, acting Assistant Prothonotary, their executors, administrators and assigns of the penal sum of Rs. 1,76,682, which was double the value at which the estate was sworn. The conditions of the bond which was in the usual form, were, first, that Nathalal Motilal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom155
Scott, J.1. These two suits, arising out of the same causes of action and being between the same parties in the same interests, were tried together. In the first suit (No. 237 of 1877) the plaintiffs are the executors appointed by the will of Ramkuverbai alias Samkuverbai, widow of Ranchordas Canjee, and they claim from the defendant, Purmanandas, nephew and residuary legatee of the said Ranchordas Canjee, the sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty rupees with interest. This sum of 5,950 rupees is due, they contend, to the deceased widow under the will of her husband, Ranchordas, who made provision for her by directing the payment of certain annual sums amounting to Rs. 950, and by also directing that Rs. 5,000 should be paid to her in case she performed a certain pilgrimage.2. Purmanandas, as plaintiff of the second suit (No. 556 of 1877) against the said executors, prayed:(1) That the will of Ranchordas be declared void; but this prayer was withdrawn at the hearing, in consequen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1914)16BOMLR544
Shaw, J.1. By leave granted by His Majesty in Council this appeal is brought from a conviction of and sentence upon the appellant by the Chief Court of Lower Bu ma, pronounced on the 19th October 1913. The charge was one of defamation or criminal libel, and the prosecution was laid under the 21st chapter of the Indian Penal Code. In that chapter Section 499 gives a definition of defamation, and sets forth categorically no fewer than ten exceptions, any one of which forms a proper defence to the charge. By Section 500 it is provided that the punishment of defamation shall be ' simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'2. The appellant was charged with having defamed Mr. G.P. Andrew, Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Mergui, by the publication of two articles in the Burma Critic, a Rangoon newspaper, on the 28th April 1912. These articles were entitled 'A Mockery of British Justice.'3. Mr. Arnold has had experience as a journal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom218; (1944)46BOMLR363
Lokur, J.1. This appeal involves a question of considerable importance under the Khoti Settlement Act, 1880.2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 17 are co-sharers in the khotki of the village Kasheli in Ratnagiri District. Defendant No. 1 is a permanent tenant of khata No. 84 in that village. I may mention here that before the amendment of Section 3(4) of the Khoti Settlement Act, 1880, by Section 85(b) of Bombay Act IV of 1913, permanent tenants were styled 'occupancy tenants.' In accordance with the Recording officer's tharav or decision, defendant No. 1 and his predecessors were paying to the khot that (rent) at three times the survey assessment in respect of their khata No. 84. This went on till defendant No. 2 became the managing khot for 1935-36. Defendant No. 1 then made an application to the Recording-officer requesting that his liability in respect of khata No. 84 should be fixed at survey assessment and local fund cess only. Defendant No. 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom101
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C. in respect of two persons against whom orders have been made under the Foreigners Act. The two persons are Mr. and Mrs. Raab, and it is the case of the Crown that out of them Mr. Raab was, before an order was issued by the Maharaja of Baroda conferring upon him the status of a subject of the Baroda State, a naturalized subject of the Republic of Costa Rica and Mrs. Raab was a Czechoslovak. It is not in dispute that on 8th November 1947, His Highness the Maharaja of Baroda passed an order recognising Mr. Raab as a Baroda State subject, and it is not disputed before us that, if this was a valid order in its inception and is still a valid order, then in that case Mr. and Mrs. Raab will be both subjects of the Baroda State, Mr. Raab, because of the order, and Mrs. Raab because of the provision of international law by which a wife attains the status, as far as nationality is concerned, of her husband. It appears fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom217; (1946)48BOMLR828
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated September 17, 1945.2. In the action the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 in this Court, sought a declaration and consequential relief with the object of establishing that certain alleged liens claimed by and in favour of the Asian Assurance Company, Ltd., (defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to this appeal) upon 26,000 shares in that company do not attach to the shares. The Official Assignee (defendant No. 5 and the appellant in this Court) filed a counter-claim for redemption of the shares claiming that the equity of redemption was vested in him as trustee of the property of Mr. Meyer Nissim who was adjudicated an insolvent on July 16, 1940. In the Court below, the plaintiff was successful in his claim, and the learned Judge granted him certain relief against which there is no appeal, but the Official Assignee's counter-claim was dismissed with costs, and it is against that dismissal that this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom127; (1949)51BOMLR1020
ORDERTendolkar, J.1. This is a notice of motion for stay of the suit on the ground that there is a valid agreement for reference to arbitration. It is resisted on the plea that the defendant has taken a step in the proceedings in that he has filed an unconditional appearance in Court. The question for decision, therefore, is whether filing of an unconditional appearance is a step in the proceedings.2. Such a question has not arisen for determination either in England or in India for the simple reason that both under Section 4, English Arbitration Act, and under Section 19, Arbitration Act of 1899, a step in the proceedings taken 'at any time after appearance' disqualifies the defendant from applying for stay, with the result that, whether or not filing of an appearance was a step in the proceedings, it was manifestly inarguable that it prevented the defendant from applying for a stay of the suit. Section 34, Arbitration Act of 1940, which takes the place of Section 19 of the Act of 189...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1948)50BOMLR151
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This confirmation case and appeal arise from the sentence of death passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Poona against the appellant. The appellant and another were charged in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 109 respectively. The prosecution case was that on or about the night between August 25 and 26, 1946, the appellant intentionally caused the death of one Yeshwant Sapre by stabbing him with a knife and thus made himself liable to be punished under Section 302 and the case against the other person was that on the same day and about the same time and place he abetted the appellant in the com mission of the said offence of murder. The case against both the accused was tried with the aid of jurors. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty in regard to the charge against accused No. 2. The learned Judge agreed with that verdict and acquitted the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR1
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal is brought by leave of the Federal Court of India, from a judgment of that Court (Spens C.J., Varadachariar and Zafrulla Khan JJ.) dated August 31, 1943, dismissing eight appeals by the Crown against orders and judgments of a divisional bench of three Judges (Mitter and Sen JJ., Khundkar J., dissenting) of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated June 3, 1943.2. The orders and judgments of the High Court were made upon applications under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for directions in the nature of habeas corpus on behalf of nine persons, detained in various jails in pursuance of orders made under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, on various dates from October 24, 1940, to March 8, 1943. These orders and judgments directed the release of the applicants. Of the nine original applicants eight are called as respondents in the present appeal, but their Lordships were informed that two of the respondents had be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR591
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing an appeal from a conviction and sentence by the Presidency Magistrate, Fifth Court, Bombay, for an offence under the Bombay Abkari Act (V of 1878).2. The appellant was charged with having in her possession, in contravention of the Act, a quantity of foreign liquor (While Label Scotch Whisky) in excess of the limit permitted under a Government notification dated July 20, 1948, issued under the Act, and she was convicted and sentenced to a term of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, or in default to a further term of six weeks' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the High Court her main contention was that the Provincial Legislature had no power under the Government of India Act, 1935, to-legislate with respect to the possession of foreign liquors, and that Section 14-B of the Bombay Abkari Act, as amended by the Bombay Abkari (Amendment) Act (XXIX of 1947)...
Tag this Judgment!