Mumbai Court February 1937 Judgments
Babaldas Trikamdas and Co. Vs. Ajmir Ramsunder
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR890
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order made by the full Court of the Bombay Small Cause Court, and the question raised is as to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to entertain a suit by a decree-holder to establish his right to the attachment of property under Order XXI, Rule 63, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The material facts are, that the plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 500 odd, and in January, 1936, in execution of that decree he attached fifteen buffaloes alleged to belong to the judgment-debtor. The present opponent made a claim to those buffaloes under Rule 58 of Order XXI. That claim was inquired into by one of the learned Judges of the Small Cause Court and was eventually allowed, and under Rule 60 an order was made setting aside the attachment. The plaintiff then brought a suit in the Small Cause Court under Rule 63, which is in thege terms :Where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may ...
Tag this Judgment!Ali ZamIn Vs. Akbar Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR970
George Rankin, J.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether a wakf- nama, dated May 25, 1917, is valid and operative according to Shia law. The settlor was the late Nawab Haji Syed Nawab Mehdi Husain Khan, commonly known as Badshah Nawab. The suit was brought on January 9, 1920, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Patna by the respondent, Syed Akbar Ali Khan alias Syed Chhotey Nawab, one of the two surviving brothers of the settlor. The main though not the sole purpose of the suit was to obtain a declaration that the deed of May 25, 1917, was invalid, and did not in law operate as a dedication, of the properties comprised therein, and that, notwithstanding the deed, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of a third share of the properties by inheritance from his brother the settlor, who had died on March 19, 1919. The appellant before their Lordships is Syed Ali Zamin who was the first defendant in the suit; by the terms of the deed he was appointed to be sole mutwalli on th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Harilal Gordhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom385; (1937)39BOMLR613
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which the accused complain of their convictions by the City Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, IV of 1887. The convictions were, upheld by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, and the question is whether on the evidence the convictions can be supported.2. The case was tried summarily, and therefore we have no record of the exact evidence given. We have only the statement of the evidence recorded in the judgment of the trial Court, and to some extent in that of the appellate Court.3. It appears that a police agent (usually referred to as a punter) was given a marked five rupee currency note, and he and a companion went to the place of the accused, and, according to them, handed over the marked currency note as a bet on Ahmedabad 5. On the premises of the accused being raided, the marked currency note was found with accused No. 1.4. These gambling cases no doubt present...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Raichand Vs. the Broach Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom461; (1937)39BOMLR815
Barlee, J.1. The question which we have to decide is whether we should refer this case to a full bench for reconsideration of the ruling of this Court in Govind Abaft Jakhadi v. Mohoniraj Vinayak Jakhadi I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 494 : 3 Bom. L.R. 407, in view of the subsequent decision of a full bench of the Madras High Court in Rama Krishnan Chettiar v. Vishwanathan Chettiar I.L.R. (1935) Mad. 93. The question concerns the interpretation of Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides for rateable distribution amongst decree-holders of assets held by a Court. Such assets have to be rateably distributed amongst such persons as have applied to the Court for the execution of decrees passed against the same judgment-debtor. Now in Govind v. Mohoniraj a decree had been obtained by Mohoniraj against one Bhau Babaji; Bhau died shortly after and his son Kashinath was placed on the record as his legal representative; meantime Govind Abaji obtained a decree against Kashinath as the legal rep...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Ganesh Narayan Gadgil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom456; (1937)39BOMLR885
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Thanes, which raises a short point of law under the Bombay Land Revenue Code of 1879. The present respondent is the occupant of certain land assessed for agricultural purposes. A trespasser entered upon the land without the knowledge or consent of the occupant, and quarried stones from the land, that is to say, he used the land for a non-agricultural purpose; and the question is whether such user by a trespasser subjects the occupant to liability to a fine under Section 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. Section 65 of the Code provides that an occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is entitled by himself, his servants, tenants, agents or other legal representatives to make certain improvements.3. Then it provides that if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part thereof for any other purpose, the Collector's permission shall be applied for.4. Then provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Lachmichand Pardeshi Vs. Janardan Govind Nerlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1299
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement by defendant No. 1 to sell four plots of land at Kurduwadi with buildings thereon described in the plaint as (a) (b) (c) and (d). The material facts are these :-2. On October 21, 1929, defendant No. 1, who is the owner of these four plots, had agreed to sell plot (d) to defendant No. 2 for Rs. 2,000. Rs. 200 were paid as earnest money, and the bargain paper provided that the sale-deed was to be executed after Divali, that is to say, in about a fortnight, On April 18, 1930, defendant No. 1 agreed to sell all the four plots to the plaintiff for Rs. 7,000. The bargain paper recited that the properties had been mortaged to one Dr. Patki; that the vendor, defendant No. 1, was to pay off the amount of the decree obtained by the mortgagee and execute a sale-deed in the plaintiff's favour within fifteen days. There was a reference to the prior agreement between defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Lachmiram Pardeshi Vs. Janardan Govind Nerlekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom134
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement by defendant 1 to sell four plots of land at Kurduwadi with buildings thereon described in the plaint as (a), (b), (c) and (d). The material facts are these: On 21st October 1929 defendant 1, who is the owner of these four plots had agreed to sell plot (d) to defendant 2 for Rs. 2000. Rs. 200 were paid as earnest money and the bargain paper provided that the sale deed was to be executed after Divali that is to say in about a fortnight. On 18th April 1930 defendant 1 agreed to sell all the four plots to the plaintiff for Rs. 7000. The bargain paper reoited that the properties had been mortgaged to one Dr. Patki; that the vendor, defendant 1, was to pay off the amount of the decree obtained by the mortgagee and execute a sale deed in the plaintiff's favour within 15 days. There was a reference to the prior agreement between defendant 1 and defendant 2:About six months...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gurunath Shankar Godkhindi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR610
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused was an Assistant Station Master at Khanapur on August 28, 1936, and on that day he is said to have abused one Mr. Joshi, a pleader of Belgaum, and he is being charged with an offence under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act. He took a preliminary objection that Section 120 did not apply to acts done by a railway official when acting in his official capacity. The learned Magistrate overruled that preliminary objection, and his decision was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum in appeal. The accused now applies to this Court in revision.2. Sections 99 to 105 (inclusive) of the Indian Railways Act deal expressly with offences by railway servants. The group of sections is headed 'Offences by Railway Servants.3. Section 106 starts a new group of sections under the heading 'Other Offences,' and Section 120 falls within that group.4. It is contended by the applicant that the sections falling under the head 'Other Offences' deal with o...
Tag this Judgment!Fakira Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR966
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Court of the Resident at Hyderabad, dated January 17, 1936, which affirmed the convictions and sentences passed upon the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge of Secunderabad by his judgment, dated November 28, 1935.2. The appellants and another were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, sitting without jury or aid of assessors. The learned Judge convicted the appellant Fakira of offences punishable under1 Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 and to death under Section 302. The appellant Shankar was convicted under Section 148, and was sentenced to two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to suffer four months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant Kunnay Lingayya was convicted under Section 147, and was sentenced to eighteen months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine...
Tag this Judgment!Cowasji Nusserwanji Patuck Vs. Shehra Cowasji Patuck
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom81; (1937)39BOMLR1138; 173Ind.Cas.667
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a suit in which the husband sues his wife for judicial separation from her. It is the first case of its kind under the provisions of the new Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, for under Section 31 of the old Act of 1865 it was the wife alone who could sue the husband for judicial separation on the ground of his cruelty or personal violence towards her rendering it improper for them to live together, or on the ground that the husband's conduct afforded reasonable ground for apprehending danger to life or serious personal injury, or if the husband openly brought a prostitute or allowed her to remain in the place of abode of his wife. Under Section 34, however, of the new Act any married person may sue for judicial separation on one of four grounds, namely (a) any of the grounds for which such person could have filed a suit for divorce, or (b) on the ground that the defendant had been guilty of such cruelty to him or her or to their children as to render it i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »