Mumbai Court November 1937 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.
Emperor Vs. Trikamlal Keshavlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom303; (1938)40BOMLR314
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are four appeals by the Government of Bombay against decisions by the First Class Magistrate at Ahmedabad. The accused were charged under Section 193 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, with having committed a breach of Section 129. Section 129 provides :If any building or land be at any time undrained, or not drained to the satisfaction of the Chief Officer, the Chief Officer, subject to the control of the standing committee, may by written notice call upon the owner to construct: or lay from such building or land a drain or pipe of such size and materials, at such level, and with such fall as he may think necessary for the drainage of the building or land.2. The Chief Officer served notices on the accused, and the learned Magistrate held that they were not sufficient notices within Section 129. It seems to me plain that the notices were not sufficient for reasons going beyond those specified by the learned Magistrate. The notices called upon t...
Gopal Sattu Tippe Vs. Dnyanu Maruti Khade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom367; (1938)40BOMLR512
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Belgaum. The material facts are that one Bayabai was the owner of the suit property as the widow of her husband, and she surrendered to her daughters, who were the reversioners, and the suit property came into the ownership of one of the daughters, who died leaving a daughter, who succeeded to the property. That daughter died leaving a husband named Govind, who became entitled to the property as her heir. Govind sold the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff found that Bayabai was still in possession, and he sued Bayabai for possession, and on September 30, 1925, there was a compromise decree in the suit. Under that decree the plaintiff was to pay to Bayabai Rs. 350 by January, 1926, and if not paid the amount was to carry interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, and on payment of that sum the plaintiff was to get possession of the suit property. So that his right to possession w...
Braja Sundar Deb Vs. Rajendra Narayan Bhanj Deo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR700
George Rankin, J.1. The appellant and respondent are each possessed of an estate in the district of Cuttack in Orissa. These estates are situated on opposite banks of the river Kharsua-the appellant's estate of Aul being on the southern or right bank, and the respondent's estate of Kanika on the northern or left bank. The dispute between the parties is as to the ownership of an island chur which by 1913 had formed in the bed of the river at a spot between the appellant's mauza of Ekmania and the respondent's mauza of Patarpur. The chur is about seventy acres in extent.2. The appellant on November 19, 1928, sued the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, claiming title not only to the chur but also to forty-eight acres of the river. The trial Judge by his decree dated' July 9, 1930, found for the appellant as to 1951 acres of the chur and 24 acres of the river. The respondent's appeal to the High Court at Patna was limited to the 1951 acres of the chur. On January ...
Shankardas Vishnudas Darbar and the Bagalkot Bank Vs. Channappa Girima ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom336; (1938)40BOMLR443
Broomfield, J.1. These are appeals by some of the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff, who was adopted by defendant No. 1 in the year 1920 as son to her deceased husband Girimalappa, to set aside certain alienations made by his adoptive mother after his adoption and to get possession of his adoptive father's estate.2. The only issue which has been argued in these appeals is that the suit is premature by reason of an agreement between the plaintiff's natural father and defendant No. 1 at the time of the adoption, the effect of which was, according to the appellants, that the alienations by defendant No. 1 are valid for her lifetime. The agreement is thus set out in the adoption deed which is addressed by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff :-I have today adopted you as my son. You get all the rights which a son born of my womb would get. From today you should leave your natural father's name and tell my husband's name. And all my husband's property I myself shall make management ...
Sikandar Begam Vs. Zulfikar Wali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR697
Maugham, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated December 5, 1933, which reversed the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, dated July 30, 1929.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a pardanashin lady, who at the date of the suit was, as their Lordships are given to understand, nearly sixty years old. She claimed in the suit instituted by her a declaration that a certain deed of gift dated April 13, 1928, executed by her in favour of the second defendant, was obtained through fraud ; that she did not understand the contents of it; that she could not get independent advice in respect of it; that the conditions for consideration were not fulfilled; that she had no intention to execute the same, and that, therefore, it was null and void as against the plaintiff. The person in whose favour the deed of gift was executed (the second defendant), was her grandson, a minor, who is now the first respondent (commonly called Majjan), a child whom she ...
Krishna Bhima Hujare Vs. Laxmibai Narsingrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom316; (1938)40BOMLR439
Broomfield, J.1. In this appeal by defendant No, 2 the defence based on adverse possession has been given up, but it is contended that defendant No. 2 and the other defendants have established that they are permanent tenants under the terms of Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, that the notices to quit are invalid because they were given by only one of the joint landlords, and that the plaintiffs are not, in any case, entitled to enhance the rent to the extent claimed in the notices. In the notices to quit which the plaintiffs gave to the defendants they were given an option of continuing as tenants on payment of rent of Rs. 325 for the two fields instead of Rs. 225 as previously. The details of the two fields are as follows :-The first is revision survey No. 267 which was old survey No., 243. The area of this is four and a half acres and its vernacular name is kargya purya babat. The other land is revision survey No. 262, old survey No. 238, area seven and a half acres and it...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Ahalyabai Narayan Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom321; (1938)40BOMLR422
Divatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for a certain amount claimed as arrears of maintenance and for marriage allowance from the estate of one Gopal whose property had been attached by Government under Section 88, Criminal Procedure Code, by a notification in 1921 as he was absconding after being charged with a criminal offence. The first plaintiff was the widow of Gopal's undivided brother Dhondo who died in 1918 and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. Their case was that both of them were entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses respectively from the joint family property, the whole of which had become of the ownership of the absconder, the second defendant, by survivorship after the death of Dhondo ; that Government had taken possession of the whole of joint family property in 1921 and it had since then remained in their possession without having been sold...
Ford Motor Company of India Limited Vs. the Secretary of State for Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR269
George Rankin, J.1. The appellants are the Ford Motor Company of India, Limited. They import Ford motor vehicles into India from Canada, and the questions raised by this appeal relate to the amount of customs duty payable upon 256 Ford motor cars consigned to the appellants which arrived in Bombay by the SS. Algic on, or about January, 1929.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants have a monopoly of the supply of Ford vehicles to India. Save that they sometimes sell direct to their own employees or to Government, they sell in India only to authorised dealers or distributors. Each distributor has a particular district within which he is the sole agent for or retail seller of Ford vehicles. The appellants obtain from the distributors information as to their future requirements and place consolidated orders accordingly once or twice a month with the manufacturers in Canada. The evidence of the appellants' director (Mr. Gordon Edward Corey), the only witness called at the hearing of...
The Secretary of State Vs. the Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR292
George Lowndes, J.1. The principal question in this appeal is whether two quarrying leases granted by the appellant to the respondents have been forfeited by reason of the breach of a covenant contained in each against assignment.2. The quarry lands were situated in the Shahabad district of the then Province of Bihar and Orissa : the leases were dated April 1, 1928, and were for terms of twenty years. The covenant against assignment was in similar terms in each, and provided that neither the lessee (the respondent company) nor any person claiming through or under it should assign the lease or transfer any right or interest thereunder, or underlet the whole or any portion of the premises comprised in such lease without the assent of the Board of Revenue of Bihar and Orissa first being obtained, and that the penalty for infraction of this condition should be the forfeiture of the lease.3. In January, 1933, the respondent company went into liquidation, and on September 30 of that year the...
The Government Pleader, High Court Vs. Shankar Dattatraya Javadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom198; (1938)40BOMLR73
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader praying that a rule may be issued against the opponent,Mr. Javadekar, editor and printer of a paper called Lokashakti, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court. The application is made under the Contempt of Courts Act of 1926. It appears that there had been some disturbance in Sholapur on June 23, 1937, and certain persons were to be charged with offences in connection with that disturbance. The principal charge against the respondent is that in the issue of his paper of June 30 he charged the police in one article with havingendeavored to get some of the persons accused of taking part in this disturbance to admit their guilt, and when they refused, with having taken their signatures on blank sheets of paper ; and in another article with having brought pressure to bear on persons to be called as witnesses to these offences to give evidence favourable to the police, and it is said that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »