Mumbai Court July 1936 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.
Varjivandas Jamnadas and ors. Vs. Maganlal Chhabildas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom382
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiffs for the appointment of a receiver in execution of two policies issued by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd., with power to him to recover the amount due under the policies and to give the company a discharge for the same.2. A decree was passed against the defendant on 5th September 1930 in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 3,238-15-0 and interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum till payment. In execution 'of the decree the plaintiffs attached the right, title and interest of the defendant in three policies of this company of Rs. 1,000 each. The defendant was the assured in respect of one of them, and with regard to the two others the defendant was the assignee of one Maneklal Chhaganlal. By an assignment dated 16th February 1932, the defendant purported to assign in favour of his wife, Bai Kamla, for a sum of Rs. 750 his right, title and interest in the two policies assigned to him by ...
Vargivandas Jamnadas and ors. Vs. Maganlal Chhabildas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.850
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiffs for the appointment of a Receiver in execution of two policies issued 'by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co., Ltd., with power to him to recover the amount due under the policies and to give the company a discharge for the same.2. A decree was passed against the defendant on September 5, 1930, in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 3,238-15-0 and interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum till payment. In execution of the decree the plaintiffs attached the right, title and interest of the defendant in three policies of this company of Rs. 1,000 each. The defendant was the assured in respect of one of them, and with regard to the two others the defendant was the assignee of one Maneklal Chhaganlal. By an assignment dated February 16, 1932 the defendant purported to assign in favour of his wife, Bai Kamla, for a sum of Rs. 750 his right, title and interest in the two policies assigned to him by M...
Gurushiddappa Mallappa Vs. Parwatewwa Shivappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom135; (1936)38BOMLR1293
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent Parwatewwa to recover maintenance past and future and ornaments valued at Rs. 4,318. Maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 2,500.2. The plaintiff's husband Shivappa died in June, 1926. He left two widows, one Gangawwa and the plaintiff Parwatewwa. In December, 1926, Shivappa's father Mallappa made a settlement deed by which he transferred considerable properties to Gangawwa for her lifetime. Thereafter Mallappa adopted a son, the defendant, and the plaintiff's suit for maintenance was brought against him after Mallappa's death. The adoption of the defendant was expressly made subject to the settlement in favour of Gangawwa.3. The trial Court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 1,000 as arrears of maintenance for four years and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600 a year. The claim for the ornaments was dismissed on the ground that they were in the plaintiff's possession.4. In this appeal by the defend...
Samalbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Jesangbhai Ranchhoddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom104; (1936)38BOMLR1331
S.S. Rangnekar, Acting C.J.1. This appeal raises a somewhat important question under the Bombay Local Boards Act (Bom. VI of 1923). The question is whether a certain regulation made by the Taluka Local Board of North Daskroi is ultra vires the Act. First, as to the facts : There was a meeting of the Local Board on January 16, 1935, for the purpose of electing a President of the Board. Twenty members of the Board were present, and one Dwarkadas was appointed Chairman of the meeting. A resolution was moved and duly seconded by the plaintiffs to the effect that one Maneklal Manilal should be elected as the President. An amendment to the resolution was duly moved and seconded to the effect that defendant No. 1 should be elected as the President. Votes were taken by show of hands, and on a count the Chairman found that there were ten votes in favour of Maneklal and ten in favour of defendant No. 1. Thereupon, as the minutes of the meeting show, the Chairman gave his casting vote in favour o...
Dattatraya Digambar Panchwadkar Vs. Prabhakar Ramkrishna Panchwadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom202; (1937)39BOMLR94
S.S. Rangnekar, Acting C.J.1. These are two appeals in a suit for partition brought by two members of a joint and undivided Hindu family against the other members of the family, some of whom supported the plaintiffs, the principal contesting parties being the two plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The relationship between the parties appears from a pedigree of the family, which is printed at page 1 of the print. It appears from it that the common ancestor was one Raghunathboa. He had three sons,-Balkrishnaboa, Gopalboa and Govindboa-, and it is common ground that they died somewhere in 1903. The eldest brother Balkrishnaboa had two sons,-(1) Digambar, who was defendant No. 1, who is now dead, and his son Dattatraya, being defendant No. 2, and (2) Narayan, whose heirs are defendants Nos. 3 to 7. Gopalboa died without any issue. Govindboa left him surviving three sons,-Ramkrishna, Hari and Wasudev. Ramkrishna died in 1924, and the two plaintiffs are his sons. Hari is defendant No....
Emperor Vs. Kalabhai Mahomedalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom11; (1936)38BOMLR967; 166Ind.Cas.277
Broomfield, J.1. The applicant in this case was convicted of an offence under Section 15 of the Indian Petroleum Act, VIII of 1899, and fined Rs. 51. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. There were two accused persons originally. The applicant was accused No. 1. The charge against him was that he transported twenty cans, i.e. forty gallons of petroleum from the Burma Shell Depot at Baroda by rail to Godhra without a storage license as required by the Act and rules. The charge against the other accused was that in contravention of the provisions of the Act and rules he was in possession of petroleum for which there was no license. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 2 and we are not concerned with his case. It appears that he had a license for the storage of petroleum.2. The contention of the applicant accused No. 1 was that he had sold the petroleum to accused No. 2 who, as I say, possessed a storage license and that immediately on arrival of the petroleum at the railwa...
Emperor Vs. Mallappa Tejappa Bidikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom14; (1936)38BOMLR964; 166Ind.Cas.270
Broomfield, J.1. In our opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, was wrong in holding that a complaint from the Mamlatdar, Khanapur, was necessary in this case. His reason for making the order was that accused No. 3, one of the persons alleged to have abetted the forgery of a sale-deed which was the subject-matter of the criminal case committed for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, had instituted an assistance suit before the Mamlatdar as the guardian of a minor in whose favour the sale-deed was passed.2. Section 195 (2) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that :-No Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 [of the Indian Penal Code] when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding.3. The sale-deed, it appears, was produced in the assistance suit, whic...
Sat NaraIn Vs. Shri Kishen Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1129
Thankerton, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of judicature at Lahore, dated January 20, 1926, which, subject to some modification, affirmed two decrees of the District Judge of Delhi, dated April 13, 1916, dismissing two suits instituted by the present appellants, who are the two sons of Lala Sri Kishen Das, originally respondent No. 1 to these appeals.2. Sri Kishen Das, along with the appellants, formed a joint Hindu family, of which he was the managing member. The joint family owned considerable immoveable property, and a business, the headquarters of which were at Delhi.3. On April 5, 1913, Sri Kishen Das mortgaged to respondents No. 3, the Bank of Upper India, Limited, a large part of the immoveable property owned by the joint family, in security of his indebtedness to the Bank. On September 26, 1913, Sri Kishen Das was adjudicated insolvent by the High Court of Bombay under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909.4. On April 14, 1914, the Ba...
In Re: an Advocate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom48; (1936)38BOMLR1161; 166Ind.Cas.628
S.S. Rangnekar, Acting C.J.1. This is an application made to us under our general power of superintendence over pleaders. The applicant is a B.A., LL.B., of E the Bombay University and was enrolled as a High Court Pleader and was practising as such in this Court as well as in Courts subordinate to it from January, 1917, under a sanad issued to him by this Court. It appears that in 1922 he succumbed to the lure of the Stock Exchange, and that apparently seems to be the beginning of his difficulties. Ultimately in 1925 he found it necessary to apply for being adjudged an insolvent. Pending his application in the Insolvency Court he was permitted to practise, but for some reason or other which is not clear that permission was withdrawn. In May, 1934, he obtained his discharge from the Insolvency Court on the condition of his submitting to a decree for Rs. 1,500 in favour of the Official Assignee. Pending his insolvency application he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 100 entrusted to him by on...
In Re: Nhanesaheb Ahmedsaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom453; (1936)38BOMLR956; 165Ind.Cas.901
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this case is whether the Chairman of a District School Board is a public servant not removable from office save by or with the sanction of Government, so that he cannot be prosecuted for any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty without the previous sanction of the Local Government under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts may be very briefly stated. The petitioner is a member and the respondent is the Chairman of the District School Board, Ratnagiri, constituted under the Bombay Primary Education Act (Bom. IV of 1923). There was a meeting of the Board on February 22, 1935, at which certain business was transacted, and the minutes were recorded in the minute book and signed by the Chairman. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the Chairman charging him with having forged the minutes and thereby committing an offence under Section 465 of the Indian Pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »