Mumbai Court November 1935 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.
Nadirsha Hormusji Sidhwa Vs. Krishnabai Bala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom199; (1936)38BOMLR280; 163Ind.Cas.79
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an award by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay. The three contentions raised by the employer upon which the learned Commissioner had to adjudicate, are (1) that the employer the present appellant did not employ the deceased who was engaged by one Rama to whom the contract for painting the building had been given for a lump sum; (2) that the deceased Laxman Bala was not a workman because his employment was of a casual nature and he was employed otherwise than for the employer's trade or business; and (3) that he was not a workman according to the schedule because he was not engaged in the construction, repair or demolition of a building, painting not being repair within the meaning of the schedule.2. On the first point the learned Commissioner held that it was the appellant, and not Rama, who employed the deceased workman. That seems to me to be a pure finding of fact with which we cannot deal in appeal.3. Upon the secon...
Dhanu Lal Suchanti Vs. Hukum Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR336
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from an order and decree of the High Court at Patna affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Patna in execution of a decree obtained by the plaintiffs, who represent the Digambari sect of Jains, against the defendants, who represent the Swetambari sect, in a suit instituted pursuant to Order I, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the rights claimed by the Digambaris in three ancient temples at Pawapuri and Porkharpur in the Patna District. The dispute which is the subject of this appeal arises out of the centuries-old differences between the two sects of Jains as to whether the wearing of clothes or adornments is prohibited by their religion. The Digambaris who are necessarily debarred from fully observing this prohibition are under no such restriction as to the images which they venerate or worship. It is alleged in the plaint that images which do not represent the natural figure of man as born without any clothes or adornment...
Zipru Krishna Vs. Pannalal Bahirudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR276
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are three applications which raise the same question of law. Civil Reference No. 14 of 1934 is a reference by the District Judge of East Khandesh under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code; Civil Reference No. 16 of 1934 is a reference by the Subordinate Judge made through the District Judge of Ahmednagar also under Order XLVI, Rule 1; and Civil Revision Application No. 277 of 1934 is an application in revision against the judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon. The question which arises in all the cases is whether when execution proceedings have been transferred to the Collector for sale of immoveable properties and the judgment-debtor is a minor, power to the decree-holder to bid can be given either by the Collector or by the Court. The question seems to have given rise to a considerable difference of opinion, and there is no authority directly on the point. But the question lies within a narrow compass.2. Under Order XXI, Rule 7...
Emperor Vs. Fakir Mahomed Ramzan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR160
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction on two charges under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. On February 13, 1935, a theft was committed at a house in Dadyseth Agiary Lane. The police were called to the house, and they found the complainant, a woman named Kasturbai, there. She was asked to sleep somewhere else during the ensuing night, and the police then locked up the room in which the theft had taken place, and the next day they attended with the finger print bureau expert, who took the impressions of certain finger prints. He found a right thumb impression on a glass jar, and the imprint of a right index ringer on a box of jewellery. There was also on a glass door of the cupboard an impression of the palm of a hand, but that has not been identified. A photograph was subsequently taken of the thumb impression on the glass jar and of the impression of the right index finger on the jewellery box, and those photographs are exhibi...
Fakir Mahomed Ramzan Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom151; 162Ind.Cas.231
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction on two charges under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code. On February 13, 1935, a theft was committed at a house in Dadyseth Agiary Lane. The Police were called to the house, and they found the complainant, a woman named Kasturbai, there. She was asked to sleep somewhere else during the ensuing night, and the Police then locked up the room in which the theft had taken place, and the next day they attended with the fingerprint bureau expert, who took the impressions of certain fingerprints. He found a right thumb impression on a glass jar, and the imprint of a right index finger on a box of jewellery. There was also on a glass door of the cupboard an impression of the palm of a hand, but that has not been identified. A photograph was subsequently taken of the thumb impression on the glass jar and of the impression of the right index finger on the jewellery box, and those photographs are Exs. B and C, which have...
Lakshmichand Rajmal Vs. Gopikisan Balmukund
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom171; (1936)38BOMLR117
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case certain property was stolen from the complainant on January 3, 1934, and it was found in possession of the present applicant on the next day. The police seized the property, and charged the applicant and his brother with stealing it. But on January 22 the police made an application to the Magistrate that he should discharge the accused as there was no sufficient evidence to place them on a charge-sheet. The police were of course well aware of the presumption that arises under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that a man in possession of property shown to have been stolen soon after the theft is presumed either to have stolen it or to know that it had been stolen, and when the police applied for the discharge of the accused, it must have been because they were satisfied that that presumption could be rebutted. After the discharge of the accused, the question arose as to what was to be done with the property which the police had seized. Appare...
Surendra Krishna Roy Vs. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali Matwali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR330
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on January 30, 1918, for declaration of title to and for possession of a parcel of land at Kidderpore now known as 18, Kaila Sarak Road. On the side of the plaintiff and on the side of the defendants there have been various devolutions of interest, to which, however, it is not now material to direct attention. The plaintiff's case was that in 1903 he purchased the lands in schedule Ka to the plaint from a Commissioner of Partition who was selling them under an order of the Court made in a partition suit having reference to the Bhukailash Raj estate. The property which he purchased was lakheraj and it is now admitted that the plaintiff has the title which he claims and that it covers the land in suit. The suit lands were at one time described as measuring about 1 1/2 bighas, but according to later measurements it would seem that they amount roughly to an acre, being about 2 bighas 13 cottas.2. The case for the plaintiff is tha...
Kaikhusroo Manekshah Talyarkhan Vs. Gangadas Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom322; (1936)38BOMLR712; 165Ind.Cas.184
Rangnekar, J.1. The main facts in this suit are not in dispute and raise a short but interesting question under the Indian Limitation Act.2. One Dubash died in Bombay, in the year 1921, leaving a will of which he appointed five persons to be the executors and trustees. He left considerable moveable and immoveable property including Government Promissory Loan Notes and Port Trust Bonds of the aggregate value of over five lakhs of rupees. The will was proved by some of the executors, and they took charge of the estate. In the course of the administration of the estate, they decided to get the Government Promissory Notes and Port Trust Bonds renewed after recovering the interest due thereon, and then to divide the same among the heirs. For this purpose they handed over these securities and bonds to one Commissariat, who was a sharebroker. The latter from time to time returned to the executors some of these securities of the face value of over Rs. 2,19,000 duly renewed together with the am...
Motilal Chimanram Vs. Sarupchand Prithiraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1058
B.J. Wadia, J.1. On June 24, 1930, the plaintiffs took out this originating summons against the defendants for dissolution of the partnership firm known as the New Bombay Flour Mills Company, and for an order that the accounts of the partnership should be taken and its affairs wound up by and under the directions of the Court. The partners of the firm, which I will shortly refer to as ' the suit partnership ', were the firm of Chimanram Motilal consisting of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with a ten annas share, and the 1st defendant firm of Messrs. Sarupchand Prithiraj with a six annas share in the rupee. In the firm of Chimanram Motilal the plaintiffs had a ten annas share, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had a share of four annas, and defendant No. 4 a share of two annas in the rupee. The suit partnership purchased a flour mill in Bombay in October, 1926, after which it commenced doing business. On or about November 2, 1927, the suit partnership was dissolved, and an agreemen...
Pratapmull Agarwalla Vs. Dhanabati Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR323
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 561 of 1933 from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in its appellate jurisdiction dated June 5, 1934, which reversed a decree passed by the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction dated November 21, 1933, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.2. The plaintiffs carry on business under the name and style of Pratapmull Rameshwar as moneylenders. Chunilal Johury and his son, Motilal Johury, constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law and from time to time the plaintiffs lent them money which, they alleged, was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the borrowers and their family on the security of properties belonging to them. On December 21, 1927, plaintiffs lent Chunilal and Motilal Rs. 25,000 at eight per cent, interest on mortgage; on October 12, 1928, they lent them a further sum of Rs. ,00,000 at seven and a half per cent, interest on mor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »