Mumbai Court August 1934 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.
Dattatraya Gopal Limaye Vs. Mahomedkhan Fatekhan Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom122; (1935)37BOMLR76
Murphy, J.1. This is an appeal against a final decree in a redemption suit. The final decree was made on July 1, 1929. There had, however, been a preliminary decree, made on January 4, 1929, against which an appeal was made to this Court, No. 205 of 1926. The redemption suit was in respect of two mortgages, each for a different sum, executed in 1881 and 1892. The original Court had held that plaintiffs were not agriculturists, and had directed an account to be taken on that footing. In this Court it was held that the defendants were agriculturists, and consequently that they were entitled to have an account taken under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. It was also held on the question of the consideration of the earlier mortgage, that it was all furnished, and that it amounted to Rs. 13,206-8-0. As to the consideration of the second mortgage, it was found that the question could not then be disposed of, since that mortgage had been based on a series of khatas, a...
The Municipality of Ahmedabad Vs. Ravjibhai Bhailal Contractor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom127; (1935)37BOMLR69; 155Ind.Cas.669
Murphy, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad directing that an award, exhibit 16, made by Mr. Shivdasani on a reference to him from two arbitrators as final umpire, be filed, and that a decree should be drawn up in its terms and in accordance with certain directions made in the body of the judgment. The defendant Municipality was ordered to pay its own costs and those of the plaintiff.2. The dispute was between the respondent, Ravjibhai Bhailal, and the Municipality of Ahmedabad, and the only question we have to decide is whether Mr. Shivdasani, the umpire in question, was guilty of legal misconduct in the proceedings which culminated in his award.3. The history of these differences is as follows-It appears that in 1921 the Municipal Committee had decided to introduce a new system of scavenging into Ahmedabad City. They entered into a contract with the respondent, and what was contemplated was that there should be a system of...
Mulchand Hemraj Vs. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom287; (1935)37BOMLR288; 159Ind.Cas.911
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiffs' firm carried on-business in Bombay as commission agents at the date of the suit, but has since been dissolved. They acted as commission agents in Bombay for the firm of Chaturbhuj Pitamberdas & Co., and filed this suit to recover from the defendants as constituting the firm of Chaturbhuj Pitamberdas & Co. the sum of Rs. 29,984-12-0 with further interest in respect of their several dealings with the firm. According to the plaintiffs, the original 1st defendant and his two sons, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, formed a joint and undivided Hindu family of which the original 1st defendant was the 'karta' or manager ; the 4th defendant and his son the 5th defendant formed another joint and undivided Hindu family of which the 4th defendant was the manager; and the original 1st defendant and the 4th defendant on behalf of themselves and their respective joint families and the 6th and 7th defendants-carried on business in partnership in the name of .Chaturbhuj Pitamber...
Emperor Vs. Vishvasrao Balvant Davare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR968
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision by Vishvasrao Balvant asking us to interfere with his conviction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, confirmed on appeal by the Sessions. Judge at Nasik, under Section 14 of the Bombay Special (Emergency) Powers Act (XVI of 1932). It appears that under the Bombay Special (Emergency) Powers Act, 1932, the District Magistrate of Poona had made an order requiring the present applicant, in the first paragraph, to abstain from every act in furtherance of the Civil Disobedience Movement, and, in the second paragraph, to abstain from encouraging or inciting any person to interfere with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, and, in the third paragraph, to abstain from organising, being present at or addressing any meeting held in furtherance of the objects referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, and then the accused was required to reside and remain within the limits of Poona City Taluk...
Vishvasrao Balvant Davare Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.40
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by Vishvasrao Balvant asking us to interfere with his conviction by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge at Nasik, under Section 14 of the Bombay Special (Emergency) Powers Act (XVI of 1932). It appears that under the Bombay Special (Emergency) Powers Act, 1932, the District Magistrate of Poona had made an order requiring the present applicant, in the first paragragh to abstain from every act in furtherance of the Civil Disobedience Movement, and in the second paragraph, to abstain from encouraging or inciting any person to interfere with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, and, in the third paragraph, to abstain from organising, being present at or addressing any meeting held in furtherance of the objects referred to in paras. 1 and 2, and then the accused was required to reside and remain within the limits of Poona City Taluka, and not to lea...
Gopikabai Mahadev Bavdekar Vs. Chapsi Purshottam Lahana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom80; (1934)36BOMLR1236
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises under the Provincial Insolvency Act and has been preferred by the original petitioner Gopikabai, who has applied to the Insolvency Court that the five opponents should be adjudicated insolvents. Her case was that the opponents had passed in her favour a promissory note for Rs. 45,000, that Rs. 10,000 were paid to her in part payment thereof and that the balance is still due by the opponents to her. The opponents contended, among other things, that the petitioner had no right to bring this application because under Section 9, Sub-section (1), Clause (a), of the Provincial Insolvency Act it was provided that a creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petting against a debtor unless the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor amount to Rs. 500, and their contention was that the alleged debt of Rs. 35,000 has been discharged by an agreement between the parties and the petitioner has passed a receipt to them in full satisfaction of that debt,...
Municipal Borough Vs. Mahomed Isak Abdul Karim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Bom43; 160Ind.Cas.736
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The respondent had filed a suit against the appellant the Municipal Borough of Dhulia, for an in junction restraining it from giving a fresh qualification to certain persons who; according to him, had been disqualified by an order passed by the District Judge under Rule 10, Sub-rule (5), of the Municipal Election rules. On 21st July 1930, the electoral roll of the Municipality was published under Rule 6 for the purposes of the triennial elections which were to take place on 19th October 1930. On 6th August 1930, a reference was made by the Chief Officer to the Municipality under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 pointing out that 936 persons whose names appeared on the list of voters were disqualified under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. The Municipality rejected the reference and the respondent preferred an appeal to the District Judge against the decision of the Municipality under Rule 11, Sub-rule (5) of the Municipal Election Rules. On 30th September 1930, the Dis...
Emperor Vs. Kassam Alibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Bom459; (1934)36BOMLR965; 153Ind.Cas.38
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order of acquittal of the accused. The case is a very trivial one, but a point of law of some importance is involved in it. The accused was charged under Section 313A of the City of Bombay Municipal Act of 1888 with hawking without a license. The learned Honorary Magistrates, who heard the case, were of the opinion that the complaint, being lodged by the police and not by the Municipal Commissioner, was ultra vires, and that they could not dear with the case; and then somewhat illogically they ordered that the accused should be acquitted. In any view of the case, I think, that order must be wrong. If the learned Magistrates had no valid complaint before them, their proper course was to decline to take cognizance of the case. They could not make an order of acquittal except in a case in which they had taken cognizance and heard the evidence.2. However, in considering what order we ought to make, we have ...
Emperor Vs. Shankar Venkusa Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom39; (1934)36BOMLR1113
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an acquittal of accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sholapur. The facts are not in dispute. The accused in question were charged under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act of 1887 with having been found in a common gaming house for the purpose of gaming. The finding of fact by the Magistrate, which was accepted by the lower appellate Court, was that the accused in question were in a common gaming house for the purpose of gaming, but just before the arrival of police they escaped to a neighbouring house. Two of them were arrested in the neighbouring house about half an hour after the raid by the police, and the other of them, accused No. 2, was arrested three days later. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that on those facts the accused were not 'found' in a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 5, because they were not found there...
Maruti Savalaram Kumtekar Vs. Namdev Co-operative Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom123; (1935)37BOMLR68
Murphy, J.1. This is an application filed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poona, made in the course of the trial of suit No. 1809 of 1928 dismissing the claim as against defendant No. 4 in that suit. Defendant No. 4 was originally the Namdev Co-operative Society, and the ground for the dismissal of the suit against the Society was that the notice requisite for suing them under Section 70 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, had not been served. The provision of the section is:-No suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.2. Admittedly, nothing in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »