Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom85; (1937)39BOMLR1179; 173Ind.Cas.652
Kania, J.1. The defendant has taken out this notice of motion to record a compromise on the terms contained in the letter of his attorneys dated January 13, 1937, and praying that a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the said compromise. The first contention urged by' the plaintiff is that the procedure adopted is incorrect. Relying on the decision in Manilal Motilal v. Gokaldas Rowji I.L.R. (1920) Bom. 245 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1048 the plaintiff urges that the only right of the defendant is to put in a supplemental written statement, pleading by way of defence the compromise propounded by him. He further relies on High Court Rule 150 which enables a defendant to file a supplemental written statement in respect of matters which arose after his first pleading, constituting his defence to the action, was filed.2. In my opinion the plaintiff's contention is not correct. Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, allows a compromise to be proved but lays down no p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR712
Thankerton, J.1. [After referring to the provisions of Rule 81 of the Judicial Committee Rules, 1925, his Lordship continued :] Counsel for the petitioner appears to be flying straight in the teeth of the rule. The proposal is a novel one to me, or, at least, a most unusual one. I fear that it is not competent. The petitioner is asking for indulgence to appeal as a pauper, and yet wishes to employ counsel at someone else's expense. He is seeking to have the best of both worlds.2. With regard to the legal aid provided to prisoners by the Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, there is statutory provision for it. The petitioner is asking for an order which this Board cannot possibly pronounce.3. With the exception of the point with regard to the fees of counsel and solicitor, the petition will be granted....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom137; (1937)39BOMLR1269
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia allowing the plaintiff-respondent's claim against the Dhulia Municipality for damages amounting to Rs. 9,500 for wrongful dismissal.2. The facts are set out in full detail in the judgment of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge. For the purposes of this appeal they may be stated very shortly. The plaintiff was appointed Chief Officer and Engineer in the service of the Municipality in April, 1922, these two posts having been comfebined with the sanction of Government. In February, 1927, the Municipality resolved to separate the posts and to have a Chief Officer on Rs. 200 rising to Rs. 300 a month and an Engineer on Rs. 150 rising to Rs. 250 a month. The plaintiff at that time was drawing pay as Chief Officer and Engineer at the rate of Rs. 350. The separation of the two posts was not at once given effect to. But on April 12, 1929, the Municipality passed a resolution in the following te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom389; (1937)39BOMLR606
Divatia, J. 1. This appeal arises under the Indian Succession Act of 1925 and is preferred by the opponent in an application for letters of administration to the estate of one Bhujanga who made a will dated May 30, 1932, in the petitioner's favour. The opponent who is the petitioner's brother contends that the will is not valid inasmuch as the two attesting witnesses had not signed their names but had only made their thumb impressions, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 63, Clause (c), of the Indian Succession Act of 1925, were not fulfilled. According to him, it was necessary under that section that each of the attesting witnesses shall sign in the presence of the testator, which means that he must put down his name in his handwriting and not merely affix his mark or thumb impression. The learned Judge has not accepted this contention and has held that the word 'sign' includes the making of a mark, in the case of a person unable to write his name, as defined in the General Clau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom449; (1937)39BOMLR807
Wassoodew, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, who was a goods guard serving at Kalyan in the G.I.P. Railway, instituted this action against the Secretary of State for India in Council essentially to recover Rs. 1,873 as damages for breach of contract to re-employ him implied in the Communique issued under the instructions of the Member of Commerce and Industry, of the Government of India containing the terms of settlement of the dispute then pending between the Railway Administration and its employees. The material facts are these. In the beginning of February 1930, there was a general, strike of Railway employees which was joined by the plaintiff. Soon thereafter there were negotiations between the All-India Railwaymen's Federation on behalf of the employees and the Member of Commerce and Industry. In those negotiations there was a settlement of the dispute and the terms of that settlement were embodied in a Communique, the substance of which is as follows:The Railway Administration will n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1938Bom148; (1937)39BOMLR1257
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants are the owners of properties in the Kalupur ward of the city of Ahmedabad. They brought this suit, which has been dismissed by the District Judge of Ahmedabad, for a declaration that certain notifications under the Land Acquisition Act issued by Government at the request of the Municipality are ultra vires and illegal and for an injunction restraining the defendants, the Secretary of State for India and the Municipality, from going on with the acquisition proceedings. The notifications in question relate to a scheme called the Kalupur Relief Road Scheme for the construction of a new arterial road through the city from the Fort of Bhadra to the neighbourhood of the Railway Station. Proposals in this connection, originally a part of a larger improvement scheme, had been under consideration for some years before 1923. In that year Mr. Mirams, the then Consulting Surveyor to Government, at the request of the Committee of Management, then temporari...
Tag this Judgment!