Mumbai Court April 1935 Judgments
In Re: Abdulsatarkhan Kamruddinkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR580
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of acquittal made by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur in a case in which one Ratanlal Kishenlal was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Sholapur of an offence under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., the offence of using a false trade mark or a false property mark. The allegation of the complainant was that the accused had used a property mark which had been in use by the complainant for a considerable number of years and to which he had established a right and that he had thereby induced his customers to suppose that the bidis sold by him were the complainant's bidis. The Sessions Judge on appeal from the conviction did not go into the merits of the case at all. He acquitted the accused on a preliminary ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 15 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, which provides that no such prosecution as Is mentioned in Section 14 (and that includes a prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Satar Khan Kamruddinkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom359; 158Ind.Cas.168
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of acquittal made by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur in a case in which one Ratanlal Kishenlal was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Sholapur of an offence under Section 482, I.P.C., i.e., the offence of using a false trade-mark or a false property mark. The allegation of the complainant was that the accused had used a property mark which had been in use by the complainant for a considerable number of years and to which he had established a right and that he had thereby induced his customers to support that the bidis sold by him were the complainant's bidis. The Sessions Judge on appeal from the conviction did not go into the merits of the case at all. He acquitted the accused on a preliminary ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 15, Merchandise Marks Act, which provides that no such prosecution as is mentioned in Section 14 (and that includes a prosecution under Section 482, I.P.C.) ...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyayya Shidramayya Hiremath Vs. Chanvirangouda Virangouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom420; (1935)37BOMLR706; 159Ind.Cas.272
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Dharwar, and the question which arises is on the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff sues to recover rent due under a rent note made by one Mallawwa, who was a minor widow at the time. The rent note was in favour of defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 2 was a surety for the payment of the rent. The rent became payable on March 31, 1925, and that is when the cause of action to recover the rent accrued. The plaintiff was adopted by Mallawwa on March 2, 1928. He had been born in 1905, and therefore at the date when the cause of action accrued he was major. He started this suit on July 19, 1929, to recover the rent both against defendant No. 1, and against defendant No. 2 as surety. The trial Court dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. On appeal the District Judge held that the suit was not barred, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed. From that decision defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Manilal Nanavati Vs. Sakarchand Shah and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR124
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. Civil Revision Application No. 448 of 1932 is an application in revision against an order of the Full Court of the Small Cause Court, Bombay, holding that they had no jurisdiction to entertain an application. The plaintiffs sued a firm in the Small Cause Court, and they served the present applicant with a notice under Order XXX, Rule 3, as being an alleged partner in the firm, and he appeared under protest under Rule 8. Subsequently the plaintiffs, ignoring, as they were entitled to do, the appearance of a partner under Rule 8, obtained a decree ex parte against the firm, and then they applied to try the question whether the present applicant was a partner under Order XXI, Rule 50 (2). The provisions of Order XXX and of Rule 50 of Order XXI have been applied to the Small Cause Court. Rule 50 (2) provides that where a question has to be tried as to whether a particular person was a partner in the firm against which judgment has been obtained, the Court may ord...
Tag this Judgment!Kadappa Bapurao Desai Vs. Krishtappa Bachappa Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom380; (1935)37BOMLR599; 158Ind.Cas.560
Divatia, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit to recover possession of certain property with mesne profits from the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants were his distant bhaubands, that the family owned two watans, viz., patilki and deshgat watans, that according to the ancient custom of the family of the parties these watans were impartible, that the watan property descended according to the rule of lineal primogeniture, that only the deshgat lands were given for maintenance to the bhaubands but no part of patilki watan was to be given to them for such maintenance, that in spite of that custom, one Rayappa, who, along with the plaintiff, belonged to the eldest branch of the family, gave certain property in 1878 to one Tatya and others of the third branch of the family to which the defendants belong,, that the property included some lands of the patilki watan for their maintenance, that this grant would be valid only during the lifetime of Rayapp...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Strauss and Co. Limited; in Re: Bhimraj Harlalka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1080
Rangnekar, J.1. This petition raises a somewhat difficult and important question under Sections 270 and 271 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In form the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to make a winding up order against an unregistered foreign company not consisting of more than seven members.2. The facts which do not seem to be in dispute are briefly as follows : The respondent company was incorporated in England with limited liability under the English law. It carries on business in India and its principal place of business in India is situate in Bombay. It was stated in the petition that the company consisted of more than seven persons, but it is now admitted that that statement was made, inadvertently and that the company consists of five members only. The petitioning creditor is a creditor in the sum of about Rs. 60,000 and admittedly there are other creditors whose claims exceed that of the petitioning creditor. The petition is founded upon the allegation that t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR634
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal in a criminal case which has undergone ;some vicissitudes in the Courts in India.2. The appellant, with six other persons, was tried at Karachi and was convicted of murder. The accused were tried before the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Sind, Mr. Dadiba Mehta, and a special jury of nine jurors. After a trial lasting five weeks six of the accused were convicted on different parts of the charges, and sentenced. The seventh was acquitted. The convicted men then appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and the appellant appeals by special leave to His Majesty in Council. On this appeal questions have arisen, which, in their Lordships' opinion, it is not necessary finally to settle, as to the precise position of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind in its criminal jurisdiction and in respect of its appellate jurisdiction.3. The material sections are the sections of the Bombay Act No. XII of 1866 as amended, which provides, by Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs. Dayambai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom357; 158Ind.Cas.159
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Rangnekar, J. in which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The facts are not substantially in dispute. The defendants represent a firm which, at the material dates, consisted of three partners, Alibhai, defendant 1, Esoofalli, whose widow and heirs are defendants, and Tyaballi, whose widow and heirs are also defendants. These three persons carried on business as partners in Bombay in a firm dealing in canvas, and they had, at one time, in the firm a raehta named Ratansey, who was the father of the plaintiff. Ratansey died in 1921, and in 1922 a sum of Rs. 15,000 odd was advanced to the firrrii whose name, I should have said, was Esoofalli Moosaji & Co., by the representatives of Ratansey. The loan is entered in the samadaskat book kept by the representatives of Ratansey, i.e. the creditors, and it was the custom for payments on account of that loan and the interest thereon to be entered ...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala Vs. Chimanlal Chunilal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom99; (1935)37BOMLR665
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a patent action. Plaintiff is the holder of a Patent No. 18164 dated July 4, 1931, for an improved process of treating dried fruits, the process being particularly applicable to the treatment of dried shell almonds and betel-nuts. Defendants are betel-nut merchants, and the plaintiff's case is that since about April-May, 1933, defendants have been using his process, or substantially the same process, for the treatment of betel-nuts, and have been selling betel-nuts in the market treated by that process. He filed the suit >on April 3, 1934, alleging that the defendants are infringing his patent rights, and prays for an injunction against the defendants and for an account of the profits made by them, or, in the alternative, for damages in respect of the infringement. Defendants deny the validity of the patent on various grounds, and they also deny the infringement. Several issues have been raised. Plaintiff led his evidence first. He was examined and cross-examin...
Tag this Judgment!Byramji Bomanji Talati Vs. the Official Assignee of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom130; (1939)41BOMLR506
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Rangnekar making an order in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the Official Assignee of Bombay suing as assignee of the estate and effects of one Cooper, and the defendant is a man named Talati. The question which arises is whether Talati can retain certain moneys he received in execution of a decree against Cooper, as against the Official Assignee. The facts are set out at length in the judgment under appeal, and I need not repeat them in full. Talati obtained against Cooper a decree for Rs. 91,000 on February 18, 1929. It was a consent decree, and a suit to set it aside subsequently failed, so that the decree stands, and it is in connection with the execution of that decree that the question in this suit arises. The property on which, execution is said to have been levied is of this nature. Cooper had an immoveable property at Champagalli, and he entered into a contract to sell half of it to a man ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »