Mumbai Court August 1933 Judgments
Louis Philip Dias Vs. Mahadev Barik Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom485; (1933)35BOMLR1054; 147Ind.Cas.230
Broomfield, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Thana recommending that the trial of a criminal complaint of cheating filed by one Louis Phillip Dias against six accused persons and pending in the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Bandra should be stayed pending the disposal of a civil suit filed by two of these accused persons against the complainant. The date of the criminal complaint was March 7, 1983. The plaint in the civil suit was presented on March 8, 1933, but appears to have been signed on the previous day.2. The short facts of the case are these. The complainant, who, according to his own description of himself, is a person much addicted to strong liquor, executed a sale-deed on November 2, 1932, by which he purported to sell to accused Nos. 1 and 2 two acres and a half of land near Santa Cruz for Rs. 3,000. His allegation is that the six accused persons conspired together and took advantage of the unfortunate propensity which I have mentioned, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshav Vasudev Kortikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1072; 147Ind.Cas.1010
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for bail. The applicants are three persons who are alleged to be concerned In the embezzlement of moneys belonging to minors' estates in the Sholapur District. The inquiry into the alleged defalcations began in February 1933. These applicants were arrested in May 1933. On May 20 the Magistrate released them on bail. But an application was then made to the Sessions Court under Sub-section (5) of Section 497 and the Additional Sessions Judge of Sholapur on July 28 ordered that they should be re-arrested and committed to custody. Since then they have remained in custody.2. While the proceedings were going on in the lower Court no charge sheet had been submitted. It is said to have been submitted on August 5, and it appears from it that the accused are charged with offences under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120B read with Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. But the sanction of Government is said to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindlal Maneklal Sheth Vs. the Manekchowk Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom140; (1934)36BOMLR174
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,485 from the defendants, the Manekchowk Spining and Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. on the strength of an award between the parties which was passed on March 31, 1919. The circumstances under which this award came to be passed are that the defendant Mills wanted a siding to be constructed by the B.B. & C.I. Railway Company for the purpose of their Mill, and moved Government to acquire certain land adjoining the Mill. That land was held by the plaintiff under a perpetual lease although he was not the owner. The plaintiff, who was the agent of a neighbouring Mill, objected, and was not willing to agree to the proposed acquisition, and in order to facilitate the land acquisition proceedings the question between the parties was referred to arbitration. It appears also that certain questions arose as to the use by the neighbouring mill, Harivallabhdas Mill, of which the plaintiff was the agent, of the siding to be built for the Maneckchowk Mills, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bakaralli Makhdoombaksha Vs. the Sassoon and Alliance Silk Mills Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom126; (1934)36BOMLR190
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act,-there having been a difference of opinion between the learned Chief Judge and the 3rd Judge of that Court sitting at a full Court.2. The facts are that the plaintiff, who is a workman employed in the mill of the defendants, sued the defendants for Rs. 130, made up in part of wages for the month of August 1932 at the rate of Rs. 60 per month, wages at the same rate for the first five days of September 1932, and Rs. 60 as compensation for wrongful dismissal.3. The plaintiff was employed on the terms of certain standing orders, which apply, 1 apprehend, to the various mills in Bombay. The 24th clause of those standing orders provides that:A copy of these orders will be read to each operative when engaged, and he shall accept work at the mill on the understanding that he agrees to abide by them.4. So that, those standing orders represent the contract of employment.5. Clause 12 pro...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Ganpati Mithare Vs. Vishnu Rambhau Dhavle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom273; (1934)36BOMLR284
Shingne, J.1. The facts are :- The original owner of the suit lands was one Amin Kasam, who died in May 1910. On the finding of fact in this case, he died leaving behind him a widow by name Amitrbi, a sister by name Shahbibi, and a distant kindred by name Hasan under whom Karimbi, defendant No. 1, claims. The deceased had another sister by name Alubi, but it is found that she had died some time before.2. In February 1911 Amirbi executed a gift-deed of the suit lands in favour of one Sultan, brother of defendant No. 5 in this suit. Sultan, the donee, went into possession of the property soon after the date of the gift-On Sultan's death, Karimbi (defendant No. 1) brought a suit in October 1921 against Sultan's widow and brother (defendant No. 5) and against the tenant of the suit lands. The tenant is defendant No. 4 in this suit. It was suit No. 996 of 1921, and Karimbi got a decree in her favour on October 29, 1923, and went into possession of the suit lands in February 1924. She sold t...
Tag this Judgment!Fazalally Jivaji Raja Vs. Khimji Poonja and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom476; (1934)36BOMLR1005
Rangnekar, J.1. The respondents are cotton brokers and members of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. The petitioner entered into certain forward transactions with them for the sale of Broach cotton April-May delivery, 1933. The petitioner is not a member of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. In respect of the said dealings the respondents claimed from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,35,141. The petitioner denied his liability to pay the said sum, and a dispute arose between the parties. The contracts were subject to the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., and under bye-law No. 38 the dispute was referred to the arbitration of two of the members of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., Before the arbitrators evidence was led on behalf of the parties, but no record was kept by the arbitrators of the proceedings before them. The arbitrators differed, whereupon the dispute was referred to Mr. Boyagist of Messrs. Langley & Co. as an umpire. Evidence was led before...
Tag this Judgment!Fazaially Jivajl Raja Vs. Khimji Poonji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1933
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.801
Rangnekar, J.1. The respondents are cotton brokers and members of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. The petitioner entered into certain forward transactions with them for the sale of Broach cotton April-May delivery 1933. The petitioner is not a member of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. In respect of the said dealings the respondents claimed from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,35,141. The petitioner denied his liability to pay the said sum, and a dispute arose between the parties. The contracts were subject to the bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., and under bye-law No. 38 the dispute was referred to the arbitration of two of the members of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. Before the arbitrators evidence was led on behalf of the parties, but no record was kept by the arbitrators of the proceedings before them. The arbitrators differed, whereupon the dispute was referred to Mr. Boyagist of Messrs, Langley and Co., as an umpire. Evidence was led befo...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahiji Fula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom489; (1933)35BOMLR1046; 147Ind.Cas.43
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay in a case in which one Mahiji Fula was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Borsad, of an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Kaira.2. The relevant facts are as follows. The complainant Shana Jhina of Amiad in Borsad taluka had a young wife named Nani. In June or July 1932 the husband left his village and went to a place in the Baroda State to earn his living, leaving his wife at home with his mother. While he was away, Kala Ranchhod, a brother of Nani, came to the complainant's house and took the girl away, and it appears that he afterwards married her by natra marriage to the accused, Mahiji Fula, who belongs to the village of Dehmi. The complainant was informed of what had occurred, and he went to Dehmi in the company of two other persons and found Nani in the house of the accused. It is alleged that when he saw them the accused came out o...
Tag this Judgment!A.H.C. Sykes Vs. Sir Patrick Kelly
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom460; (1933)35BOMLR1027
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a petition presented to the Court under Section 45 of the Specific Belief Act.2. The petitioner's case is that he owns a motor car, and he has applied to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, as the registering authority, to grant him a renewal of his certificate of registration, which expires on August 31, 1933, and that the Commissioner has refused to grant such certificate except on payment of a fee of Rs. 32, which the petitioner says the Commissioner has no right to charge. Therefore the petitioner asks us to make an order Under Section 45 directing the Commissioner of Police to renew the registration certificate without requiring the payment of a fee.3. The question on the merits turns on the construction of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (VIII of 1914), and the rules made thereunder. By Section 10(1) of the Act it is provided that the owner of every motor vehicle shall cause it to be registered in the prescribed manner. Then Sub-section (2) provides th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Philip N. Godinho
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom70; (1934)36BOMLR1
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition by certain pleaders on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the other members of the Western India Advocates Association, Bombay, in which they ask the Court to decree that they have a right as pleaders to appear on the Crown Side of the High Court. Their particular contention is that they should have a right of audience in the Criminal Sessions held by this High Court.2. Rule 10 of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court provides that 'Advocates, who are not Advocates [on the Original Side] shall not appear, plead, or act for any Suitor in this Court in any matter of ordinary original jurisdiction, Civil or Criminal'; and if that rule is complied with, as it has been hitherto, it forbids the advocates on the Appellate Side from appearing in the Criminal Sessions in the High Court. There is a similar rule in the Original Side Rules, namely, Rule 44.3. But the contention of Mr. Godinho, who appears for the petitioners, is that those...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »