Mumbai Court August 1936 Judgments
Emperor Vs. R.J. Mistry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom52; (1936)38BOMLR1181; 166Ind.Cas.736
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the two accused persons who were charged under Section 60 (b) (i) read with Section 42 of Act XXV of 1934. Accused No. 1 is one of the proprietors, and accused No. 2 the manager, of the Swadeshi Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Works.2. On November 12, 1935, Inspector Kagal visited this factory and found several men working therein at 9-30 p. m. The notice of the periods of work maintained for this factory under Section 39 of the Act showed that the working hours for the night shift were from 6 to 9 p. m. and again from 10 p. m. to 4 a. m. with an hour between 9 p. m. and 10 p. m. as the period of rest. The accused were accordingly prosecuted for breach of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, which lays down that no adult worker shall be allowed to work otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods for work for adults displayed under Sub-section (1) of Section 39 and the entries made beforehand against his n...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahomed Adam Chohan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom60; (1936)38BOMLR1186
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge at Surat under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial was by a jury, and the jury convicted accused No. 1 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and they acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3. With regard to accused No. 1, the learned Judge thinks that he should have been convicted under Section 304, Part I, of the Indian Penal Code, but inasmuch as the Court has power under Section 326 to impose a sentence of transportation for life or rigorous imprisonment for ten years, it seems to me that the question whether accused No. 1 ought to be convicted under Section 326 or Section 304 is in the nature of an academic one, and hardly worth a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. In the case of accused Nos. 2 and 3, the learned Judge thinks that the verdict was perverse, and has referred the matter to us on that ground.3. Unfortunately, there have been a good many irregularities in the course of the trial. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Ravji Pradhan Vs. Vishnu Waman Kanitkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom114; (1936)38BOMLR1314
Broomfield, J.1. We are concerned in this case with a dispute between members of the Municipal Board of Bhivandi-Nizampur in the Thana District, as to whether plaintiff No. 5, who was elected President of the Municipality at a meeting held on November 6, 1934, was or was not validly elected. This depends on the construction of Section 23, Sub-section (7A)-, of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901, as amended by Act XXVI of 1930. This clause provides as follows :-On the expiry of the term of office of a municipality the president and vice-president shall continue to carry on the current administrative duties of their offices until such time as a new president and vice-president shall have been appointed or elected and shall have taken over charge of their duties. Provided that in the case of a new municipality constituted under this Act, a meeting for the election of a new president shall be called by the president of the retiring municipality. The president of the retiring mu...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Dhondappa Biradar Vs. Ramlingappa Shivappa Biradar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom173; (1937)39BOMLR112
Rangnekar, J.1. The facts in this case are somewhat complicated but, so far as they are material, may be shortly stated as follows.2. Ramlingappa and Somanna were members of a joint Hindu family and possessed eleven lands as joint family property. Somanna alienated eight out of these eleven lands to various persons, including the present appellants. Ramlingappa then brought a suit for partition against Somanna and his alienees. This was suit No. 347 of 1919. The alienees claimed that in effecting partition the equities between the parties should be adjusted, and as far as possible the lands sold to them and in their possession should be allotted to the share of their alienor Somanna. In September, 1921, a preliminary decree for partition was made, which, inter alia, directed that as far as possible the lands alienated and in the possession of the alienees should be allotted to the share of Somanna. Two days thereafter Somanna sold the remaining three lands to one Sabu, who was his brot...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Ranchhodlal Vs. Popatlal Kevaldas Zaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR343
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to recover a sum of Rs. 6,051 on four chithis dated October 6, 1925, November 15, 1925, January 4, 1926, and February 21, 1926. The amounts of these chithis were Rs. 2,500, Rs. 1,000, Rs. 600 and Rs. 1,000, and they were borrowed by defendant No. 5 as managing partner of the Jayantilal Ranchhodlal Cotton Pressing Company, defendant No. 1 in the suit. Plaintiffs are a firm of money-lenders doing business at Viramgam. The defendant company does business at Viramgam where they have a cotton press. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the other partners in the company, reside in Ahmedabad and the business of the company was managed entirely by defendant No. 5 who resided in Viramgam. The moneys were all borrowed in the name of the company. The trial Judge has passed a decree against all the defendants.2. The only question in this appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 is, whether the company, i.e. defendant No. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Aboobaker Latiff Vs. the Reception Committee of the 48th Indian Nation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom410; (1937)39BOMLR476
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award made under the Indian Arbitration Act by one Mr. S.D. Prabhavalker on February 2, 1935, in respect of certain disputes between the petitioner and the two respondents representing the Reception Committee of the 48th Sessions of the Indian National Congress regarding timber, bamboos, corrugated iron sheets, rafters and other materials supplied by the petitioner to respondents in or about October, 1934, for the construction work of certain temporary buildings and structures in an area enclosed at Worli and styled for the time being 'Abdul Gafar Nagar', Part payments were made to the petitioner for the materials supplied and lent on hire, and after giving credit for the same he made up his bills including his claim for the damage alleged to have been done to some of his materials by the respondents' servants and agents. The bills amounted to Rs. 19,000 odd. This amount was disputed by the respondents, and the disputes were referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Ranchhodlal and ors. Vs. Popatlal Kevaldas Zaveri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom262
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by respondents 1 and 2 to recover a sum of Rupees 6,051 on four chithis dated 6th October 15th November 1925, 4th January and 21st February 1926. he amounts of these chithis were Rs. 2,500, Rs. 1,000 Rs. 600 and Rs. 1,000, and they were borrowed by defendant 5 as managing partner of the Jayantilal Ranchhodlal Cotton Pressing Company, defendant 1 in the suit. Plaintiffs are a firm of money lenders doing business at Viramgam. The defendant company does business at Viramgam where they have a cotton press. Defendants 2 to 4, the other partners in the company, reside in Ahmedabad and the business of the company was managed entirely by defendant 5 who resided in Viramgam. The moneys were all borrowed in the name of the company. The trial Judge has passed a decree against all the defendants.2. The only question in this appeal by defendants 1 to 4 is whether the company, i.e. defendant 1, and the partners, defendants 2 to 4, a...
Tag this Judgment!Dharwar Urban Bank Ltd. and Vs. Krishnarao Anantrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom198; (1937)39BOMLR203
Rangnekar, J.1. These are two appeals, which arise in certain insolvency proceedings; and the facts, so far as they are material, may be briefly stated as follows.2. One Raghavendra Peerjabade was adjudicated an insolvent in 1932 on his own petition under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Bom. V of 1920). A receiver was appointed, and the receiver in the discharge of his duty to realize the property of the insolvent took possession of three survey lands Nos. 95, 146 and 148 on February 14, 1933. These lands were in the village Hallikeri, taluka Dharwar. Three days after this, respondent No. 1 put in an application objecting to the receiver's possession and contending that he was the owner of the lands in question. He is described in the proceedings as an obstructor. This application was made under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The facts on which he relied were, that the insolvent, who was originally a registered occupant of these lands, had made a default ...
Tag this Judgment!Sabhachand Navalchand Vs. Sambhoo Gyanoba Bhoj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom182; (1937)39BOMLR118
Sen, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued the defendants, who are the members of a joint Hindu family, to recover Rs. 9,648-7-6 with costs and future interest, and further prayed that in case the defendants failed to pay the said amount, it might be ordered to be recovered by sale of the mortgaged property, and that if the amount realized by sale of the same fell short of the decretal amount, the deficit might be ordered to be recovered from the defendants personally. The mortgage in this suit was for Rs. 5,000, out of which the sum of Rs. 900 was paid in cash and Rs. 4,100 was required to be paid to Government in respect of a liquor contract taken in defendant No. 3's name, on account of which Government had attached defendant No. 3's share in the defendants' house. The mortgage deed, exhibit 57, was signed by all the defendants, defendant No. 1 signing both for himself and on behalf of the minor defendants Nos. 5 to 7. The plaintiffs paid the sum of Rs. 4,100 direct to Government, and...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Narayanrao Ganpatrao Vinchurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom109; (1936)38BOMLR1339
Broomfield, J.1. These are appeals by Government in two companion suits by the representatives of the two branches of the Vinchurkar family to recover certain sums which Government have deducted from the revenue of the plaintiffs' saranjam villages in the Nasik District for eleven years before the suits. The original grant to plaintiffs' ancestors was in 1763. But in 1892 Government resumed the saranjam and restored one-half of it only including the villages in suit to the plaintiffs. Both the original grant and the re-grant in 1892 were subject to the liability to pay certain allowances called kadim hakks and other village expanses. For the payment of these charges six per cent, of the revenue of the villages, after deduction of remission if any, is set apart. This fund is called the chillar. If any balance remains after payment of the hakks and expenses it is called the ain chillar or net chillar. The sums which plaintiffs claim to recover in these suits amounting in the one case to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »