Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-28-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Bom259; (1932)34BOMLR143
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued the Municipality of Thana by its President, the Municipal Secretary, and the Sanitary Inspector for damages for malicious prosecution for unauthorisedly rebuilding his house. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana dismissed the suit. The plaintiff a2. The record of this case is voluminous, and the arguments have 'taken a considerable time. But there is no dispute as to the actual facts, and once the issues of law have been disposed of, the case seems to me to depend on a few salient facts, and many of the details may be omitted. The facts put briefly are, the plaintiff purchased a house in Thana. He applied in March 1922 for the house being entered in his name and for permission to make certain repairs and alterations. This was refused, The Municipality later on in July said that permission was refused because the house was in the regular line. The Municipality also thought of acquiring the house or portions of it for the purpose of widening the stree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-30-1931
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR1192
Patkar, Ag. C.J.1. These are four applications for quashing the order of commitment of the several accused under different sections of the Indian Penal Code passed on May 14,1931, by the Special Magistrate appointed to try the case. It is not necessary to mention all the facts leading to the prosecution of the accused in this case. The commitment can be quashed under Section 215 by this Court only on a point of law.2. The first point taken on behalf of the accused is that the case was started as a warrant case and the learned Magistrate led the accused to believe that he was trying the case under Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code and not inquiring under Chapter XVIII of the Code, and therefore the accused had no opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and leading evidence on their behalf before the Magistrate. It is further urged that though the Magistrate had power to commit the accused under Section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate was boun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-1931
Reported in : 140Ind.Cas.331; (1932)63MLJ450
Reilly, J.1. The questions referred to us are(1) whether the High Court has power to interfere with a decision of the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act,(2) whether the Board of Revenue has in this particular case exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it, and(3) what should be 'the final order to be passed in this case,' i.e., on this revision petition.2. It appears that under Section 164 of the Estates Land Act the Local Government ordered that a survey should be made and a record-of-rights should be prepared for 21 villages in the Mandasa Zamindari in the Ganjam district, which was done. On an application made by the ryots of the villages the Local Government afterwards ordered under Section 168 of the Act that a settlement of rent should be made for the villages. The Revenue Officer appointed for the purpose settled the rents for the villages. The ryots being dissatisfied, appealed against his orders to the Board of Revenue, which had been appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-03-1931
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR675
Madgavkar, J. 1. This application raises a question of some importance under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On September 25, 1930, a disturbance took place at Chirner, thirteen miles from Panvel, forty-seven accused were sent up before the Magistrate, and on January 31, 1931, were committed by him for trial before the Sessions Court of Thana under Sections 120B(1), 147, 148, 149, 224, 302, 332, 379, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial would have taken place at Thana with a jury.2. On February 12, 1931, the following notification, No. 8252-2 dated February 5, 1931, was published in the Bombay Government Gazette-Under Section 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), the Governor in Council is pleased to direct that Mr. N.R. Gundil, LL.B., Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, shall try the case known as the Chirner Riot Case, which has been committed to the Sessions by Mr. R.R. Sonalkar, a Magistrate of the First Class in the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-20-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Mad474; (1932)62MLJ720
Reilly, J.1. These cases refer to two Banks which have been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, namely,' the Madras Central Urban Bank, Limited, and the Madras City Co-operative Bank, Limited, both of which carry on their operations in Madras. The Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras demanded profession tax from these two Banks tinder Section 111 of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919. Under that section only persons who are not liable to companies' tax under Section 110 of the Act are liable to profession tax. Both the Banks objected to the Commissioner's demands, at that stage apparently maintaining that they were liable neither to profession tax nor to companies' tax. They appealed to the Standing Committee of the Corporation, which rejected their appeals. Then, under Rule 15 of SchIV of the City Municipal Act they appealed to the Court of Small Causes and at that stage contended that, if they were liable to be taxed at all, it was under Section 110 of the Act to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-14-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Bom330; (1932)34BOMLR634
Blackwell, J.1. On June 27, 1930, the plaintiffs as the holders for value of bills of lading for 27,398 bags of sugar loaded on a ship owned by defendants No. 1 brought this suit to recover from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 damages in respect of a short delivery of 1078 cwts., 2 quarters and 26 lbs. This short delivery is admitted. The suit was also framed in conversion in respect of certain sweepings. That claim and the issues raised thereon were abandoned at the hearing.2. The pleadings as originally framed were defective on both sides, and I allowed certain amendments both of the plaint and of the points of defence in order that all the matters in dispute between the parties might be properly determined.3. The ship arrived on May 4, 1929, and was completely discharged on May 8, 1929. Having regard to Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit against defendants No. 1 was prima facie barred,-the suit not having been brought until June 27, 1930. In order to meet this difficulty the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-23-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Bom196; (1932)34BOMLR258
Patkar, J.1 In this case the applicants were proceeded against under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code on a complaint filed on June 10,1931, by Mr. Antia, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was deputed by the Superintendent of Police to proceed to Udwada and inquire into the affair. It is alleged that Mr. Antia arrived at Udwada on June 7, 1931, and held an investigation, in the course of which he recorded statements of several persons, and as a result of his investigation he decided to take proceedings against the applicants under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. In the lower Court, after the examination of certain witnesses, an application was made to get copies of the statements made by the witnesses to Mr. Antia in the investigation which he is alleged to have made. The learned Magistrate refused to give copies on the ground that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply.3. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that a person against whom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-18-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Bom130; (1932)34BOMLR92; 137Ind.Cas.881
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendant not to pass dirty water on the plaintiff's site, and for an order to close the 'mori' more particularly referred to in the plaint. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff. Their decisions amount to a finding that the defendant has proved that he has the right to pass the water, as he has been doing.2. It is not in dispute that such a right falls within the definition of an easement in Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act.3. The lower Courts have also found that the defendant cannot bring himself within the terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act (V of 1882) which, so far as relevant, is to the effect that where any easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such easement shall be absolute; provided that the said period of twenty years sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-16-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Bom370; (1932)34BOMLR780; 140Ind.Cas.164
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the three houses and the mango trees upon the land, the survey numbers of which are referred to in the judgment of the learned District Judge, belong to them and for recovery of possession thereof from defendant No. 2, and also to recover price of mango crops and damages from both defendants.2. The material facts are that one Sonia, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, became the occupier of the survey numbers referred to, upon which stood the mango trees in suit and upon one of which survey numbers, viz., 127, stood the three houses in suit, On the grant of the land to Sonia, Government did not reserve the trees under the power contained in Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and in the year 1907 Sonia applied to the Collector for a kaul or lease of the trees, and the Collector replied that the trees had been declared to be of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-1931
Reported in : AIR1932Mad55; (1932)63MLJ962
Vepa Ramesam, Kt., Offg., C.J.1. These are appeals against the award of the District Judge of Salem made in certain land acquisition proceedings which vvere taken pursuant to the Town Planning Act (VII of 1^20). The scheme was generally known as Maravaneri Extension and was intended to enlarge the accommodation of Salem Town. The facts of the case may now be stated.2. On 1st February, 1921, the Madras Government invited the Municipal Council of Salem by a notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette to submit for their sanction within three months from the date of the publication of the notification a scheme in respect of the area now in question (Ex. A). This was under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act. That section authorises the Government to fix a date within which the Municipal Council should submit the scheme and the Government fixed three 'months as the period. The Salem Municipal Council did not submit their scheme within three months. The draft scheme was submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!