Mumbai Court August 1935 Judgments
Emperor Vs. A.A. Alwe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom5; (1935)37BOMLR892
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The accused were charged with committing an offence under Section 17 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1929, in that they instigated and declared an illegal strike. The strike in question was a strike of the textile industry throughout the whole of India, and it was declared on April 23, 1934, as a result of a resolution passed by a body called the All-India Textile Workers' Conference, on January 28, 1934. The conference was called by a body called the Bombay Girni Kamgar Union, in which all the accused were interested.2. The conference formulated twenty demands, which they proposed and hoped to secure as a result of the strike. The resolution of the conference and the twenty demands are contained in exhibit A. Four of those demands, namely, those numbered 3, 17, 19 and 20, were demands of a political character, which could only be granted by Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Narayan Mudlagiri Mahale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR885; 159Ind.Cas.923
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case were prosecuted under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, XIX of 1929, in that they permitted, or failed to prevent, the marriage of their son, who was under the age of eighteen years. The marriage in question took place at Goa, outside British India, and the accused were tried by the District Magistrate of Kanara, where the accused were residing at the time of the charge. The question which we have to determine is whether the conviction was legal.2. In general the subject of trials in British India for offences committed outside British India is dealt with by Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is instructive to note the history of those two sections. They are taken substantially from Sections 8 and 9 of the Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, 1879. Section 8 provides :-The law relating to offences and to criminal procedure for the time being in force in British Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondo Yeshvant Kulkarni Vs. Mishrilal Surajmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom59; (1936)38BOMLR6; 160Ind.Cas.1046
Divatia, J.1. The question arising for decision in this case is whether the estate in the hands of a reversioner is bound by an unsecured debt contracted by a Hindu widow as representing the estate for legal necessity. It arises in this way. The plaintiff brought a suit on the Small Cause side of the First IV Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Dhulia on a promissory note passed by a Hindu widow in his favour. The widow having died, the suit is brought against the reversioner to recover the amount due from the estate of the widow's husband in his possession.2. The lower Court found that the debt under the promissory note was incurred by the widow for cultivation of her husband's lands and for payment to the servants working on the said lands, and it proceeded on the basis that it was for a purpose constituting legal necessity. The defendant contended that the debt cannot be realised from the property in his hands, and relied on a recent decision of this Court in Bhagwantrao Abaji v. Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Shamrao Krishnaji Honnali Vs. the United House Building and Engineerin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1092; 166Ind.Cas.294
Divatia, J.1. All these appeals have been preferred by the defendants in suits brought by a company called the United House Building and Engineering Society (India) Ltd., of Bangalore, which had its headquarters in the Mysore State, and as such it is a foreign company. That company filed suits against the defendants to recover certain amounts for the work done by that company for them. The principal defence of the defendants was that this company had no right to file suits in British India, inasmuch as it was not a legal body, because it has not complied with the requirements of Section 277 of the Indian Companies Act. That section says that every company incorporated outside British India, which at the commencement of this Act has a place of business in British India, and every such company which after the commencement of this Act establishes such a place of business within British India, shall, within six months from the commencement of this Act or within one month from the establish...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mrs. S. D'Cunha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom15; (1935)37BOMLR880; 160Ind.Cas.515
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made; by the Cantonment Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee, convicting the accused of criminal trespass under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, and directing possession of the house alleged to have been trespassed upon to be returned to the complainant under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The relevant facts are that the complainant got a mortgage decree against accused No. 1, Mrs. D'Cunha, and in execution of that decree the complainant obtained an order for delivery of possession. The children of Mrs. D'Cunha then raised a claim that the mortgaged property had belonged to their father, and that their mother had no power to mortgage it, and they applied for a stay of execution, and on August 23, 1934, the First Class Subordinate-Judge in whose Court the matter was pending granted an order staying execution. That, no doubt, was an order in favour of the children, but if execution was stayed in their...
Tag this Judgment!Sattappa Gurusattappa Hukeri Vs. Mahomedsaheb Appalal Kazi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR221
Broomfield, J. 1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings raising the question of the liability of Kazi watan land to be sold in execution. The material facts are very few. The appellant in this Letters Patent appeal brought a suit against the respondent in 1925 and got three fields in the possession of the respondent attached before judgment. He obtained a decree on August 26,1926. It was a decree for money, but it provided that the attachment on the three fields was to continue until the decree was satisfied. In execution proceedings the Court ordered that one of these fields, Survey No. 82, pot No. 1, which is Kazi watan land, should be sold. This order for sale was made on August 8, 1928. Execution of the decree was then transferred to the Collector. Defendant made an application to the Collector contending that the land was not liable to be sold, but the Collector rejected his application, and the land was sold on June 26, 1930. In the meantime, on April 16, 1930, the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ganpat Mahajan Vs. Radhabai Krishnaji Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom162; (1936)38BOMLR215
Barlee, J.1. [ His Lordship after dealing with matters not material to this re. port, proceeded:] The last point in this case is about limitation. The decree was passed in 1927 and it gave Radhabai a recurring right. She has tried in 1933 to execute it and prima facie she has lost three years' maintenance by her laches, since the claim for maintenance for 1927, 1928 and 1929 is more than three years old. But Mr. Manerikar relies on the proceedings subsequent to the decree to bring this application within time. There was an application for review, which was granted, and then there was an appeal against that order in review, and there was an order made by this Court in appeal on November 9, 1932. If the darkhastdar, Radhabai, can take advantage of these proceedings, then she is in time.2. The question is whether she is entitled to the benefit of Clauses 2 and 3 of Article 182. Clause 3 runs-Where there has been a review of judgment the date of the decision passed on the review, and Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Veherbhai Vallavbhai Vs. Javer Soma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR942; 160Ind.Cas.527
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act asking us to review an order of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Borsad, dismissing a darkhast proceeding.2. The case raises a point of law upon which there has been considerable difference of judicial opinion, as noted by the learned Subordinate Judge. The point is a very simple one. There was a decree dated February 13, 1930, providing for payment of the decretal amount by three instalments, in October, 1930, October, 1931, and October, 1932, and there was a provision in the decree that if the defendant failed to pay any one instalment, plaintiffs might recover the whole debt at once by executing the decree. Default was made in the payment of the first instalment, and darkhast proceedings were filed on October 2, 1934. Admittedly the first instalment is time-barred, but the darkhast is within three years of the due date fixed for payment of the other two insta...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambar Khemji Gujar Vs. Rajaram Shahajirao Surbarao Mahamunkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom175; (1936)38BOMLR205
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Divatia. The plaintiff had sued to redeem a mortgage under-s. 15 D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The mortgage was made in 1875 by the plaintiff's brother to the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. The plaintiff's brother executed the mortgage as the manager of the joint family, and as the plaintiff was suing to redeem the mortgage, he necessarily admitted the validity of the mortgage which indeed he could not have challenged in a suit under Section 15 D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief ' Act. Then in 1877, two years after the mortgage, the plaintiff's brother sold the equity of redemption to the mortgagee for Rs. 20. The trial Judge held that, there being no evidence that that sale was for legal necessity, the plaintiff was not bound by it and the sale only affected the half share of the plaintiff's- brother in the equity of redemption. In appeal the learned Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Girikant Shivlal Pandya Vs. Vadilal Vrijlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom164; (1936)38BOMLR211
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Ahmedabad and it raises a point on which there has been a certain amount of difference of judicial opinion, the question being whether what is known as the rule in Cohen v. Mitchell (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 262 in English Bankruptcy Law applies to cases arising under the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920.)2. The relevant facts are that a petition in insolvency was presented on June 23, 1931, and receivers were appointed, the insolvent was adjudicated on March 10, 1932, and on April 19, 1932, the receivers gave a notice to the insolvent calling upon him to pay Rs. 1,600 which he had earned as salary after the presentation of the insolvency petition. It appears from the judgment of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad, who heard the application in the first instance, that of the Rs. 1,600, Rs. 200 were earned after adjudication. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the whole of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »