Mumbai Court March 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.
Jeka Dula Vs. Bai Jivi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom37; (1937)39BOMLR1072
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action the like of which is not to be found in the books; in form it was to set aside an alleged deed of surrender made by a Hindu widow in favour of the plaintiff and to set aside two deeds of sale executed thereafter by the plaintiff in favour of certain persons. The suit was directed against the widow, who executed a deed of surrender, and against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who were the purchasers under the alleged deeds of sale. Defendant No. 5 was joined as being the widow of one Shiva, in whose favour the plaintiff alleged the widow had executed a deed of sale relating to a portion of the properties.2. The properties in question are recognised portions of bhagdari property and they are numbered as 9/14, 9/15, and 7/1. Then there is another property 7/2. All these properties except the last originally belonged to one Ramsing and his son Chhita. After the death of Ramsing, Chhita succeeded to the) properties by survivorship and died on ...
Antony D'mello Vs. Joseph Mathew Pereira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR620
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of discharge made by the Presidency Magistrate, Additional Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in a case of criminal breach of trust. The prosecution was instituted on behalf of a firm called the Excelsior Trading Company, which appears to be a one man firm owned by Gomes petitioner No. 2, dealing in rolled gold ornaments and other articles.2. So far the only evidence in the case consists of the deposition of petitioner No. 1 who is the accountant in this firm. His evidence is that the accused was employed by the firm as a travelling salesman and canvasser. He was given articles valued at about Rs. 4,500 for sale, and on November 11, 1935, he left Bombay to travel in Gujarat and Karachi. He returned to Bombay on December 16, 1935, and was asked to render his accounts. Between December 17 and 19, he came to the office every day and returned all the goods which were entrusted to him except goods of the value of Rs. 198-8-0. With rega...
Dhunbai Sorabji Palkhiwalla Vs. Sorabji Ardeshir Palkhiwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom68; (1937)39BOMLR1143; 173Ind.Cas.373
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against her husband praying that her marrige may be dissolved on the ground set out in Section 32(j) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, namely, that her husband had ceased to be a Parsi. The term 'Parsi' is described in Section 2(7) as meaning a Parsi Zoroastrian. In order, therefore, for the plaintiff to succeed she must show that her husband had ceased to be a Parsi Zoroastrian, and she must have also under the proviso to Section 32 filed her suit for divorce on this ground within two years after she came to know of the fact that her husband had ceased to be a Parsi. The defendant has counterclaimed for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that he had never ceased to be a Parsi, and that his wife had wrongfully deserted him, and without lawful cause ceased to cohabit with him.2. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. It is for her under Section 35 of the Act to satisfy the Court that the ground for granting relie...
Lingo Bhimrao Naik Vs. Dattatrya Shripad Jamadagni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom97; (1937)39BOMLR1233; 173Ind.Cas.817
Divatia, J.1. These appeals have been referred to me on account of a difference of opinion between Barlee and Tyabji JJ. The point of difference as stated is whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the manyata-patras (confirmation deeds) set aside and to recover possession of the properties given by his adoptive mother to the defendants.2. The main facts bearing on the point are shortly these :-Plaintiff, who was born in 1912, was living with Laxmibai, the widow of Bhimrao Naik, to whom the suit property belonged, since he was about five years old. Bhimrao and the plaintiff's natural grandfather were sons of two sisters. It appears that he liveld with Laxmibai as the latter intended to adopt him, and in 1929 the idea of adopting the plaintiff was put into effect and the adoption took place on February 21, 1929. At that time Laxmibai had two daughters of hers, Venubai and Haribai, living and the third daughter Dhomdubai was dead leaving a son called Chidambar. Laxmibai had a brother c...
Anthony D'Mello and Ors. Vs. Joseph Mathew Pereira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom371
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of discharge made by the Presidency Magistrate, Additional Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in a case of criminal breach of trust. The prosecution was instituted on behalf of a firm called the Excelsior Trading Company, which appears to be a one man firm owned by Gomes, petitioner 2, dealing in rolled gold ornaments and other articles. So far the only evidence in the case consists of the deposition of petitioner 1 who is the accountant in this firm. His evidence is that the accused was employed by the firm as a travelling salesman and canvasser. He was given articles valued at about Rs. 4,500 for sale, and on 11th November 1935, he left Bombay to travel in Gujarat and Karachi. He returned to Bombay on 16th December 1935, and was asked to render his accounts. Between 17th and 19th December, he came to the office every day and returned all the goods which were entrusted to him except goods of the value of Rs. 198-8-0. With regard ...
The Wellington Cinema Vs. the Performing Right Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom472; (1937)39BOMLR654
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Barlee, and the case raises certain questions of copyright law. The plaintiffs in their plaint allege that they are the assignees of the copyright in four songs, and they annex to the plaint the assignments to themselves of such copyright. The relevant assignment annexed to the plaint is exhibit P, which as matter of construction, in my opinion, clearly assigns to the plaintiffs the copyright in the songs in question. The date of exhibit P is September 13, 1934. At the trial the plaintiffs sought to rely on an earlier assignment made in January, 1934, but the learned Judge, rightly in my opinion, refused to let them rely on a document of title which they had not pleaded. The relevance of the point is that the license on which the defendants base their title was granted in July, 1934, and an assignment made in the following September would be subject to the license previously granted by the assignors, whereas if...
Madivalappa Irappa Vs. Subbappa Shankreppa Nadagauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom458; (1937)39BOMLR895
Barlee, J.1. [After stating the facts, his Lordship proceeded :] Mr. G.N. Thakor who has argued this appeal on behalf of the defendants has challenged the findings of fact that Sangaraddi was a minor at the date of the bond in 1892, and that he died in 1895. It is not necessary to deal with this portion of the case in detail inasmuch as we think it is clearly shown by the evidence on the record that Sangaraddi must have been an minor in 1892. That evidence includes a statement made by Malkama, the: adoptive mother, when she applied for guardianship, a statement made by his natural father in 1883, and three entries from a school register. Very naturally there is a good deal of discrepancy between the results of these papers, but putting the case for the defence at its highest, Sangaraddi cannot have been more than eighteen in the year 1892. The learned Counsel has commented on the failure of the plaintiffs to procure a copy of the birth certificate of the boy, and their excuse that his ...
Emperor Vs. Nandkishorsinh Gayaprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR616
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the opponent by the City Magistrate, First Class, Bandra. The opponent was prosecuted for having committed a breach of Rule 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules by letting his bus for hire without having obtained a permit as required by that rule. The rule provides that subject to the provisions of Rules 7(5) and 7(5A) no motor vehicles shall be let or plied for hire in public places without an owner's permit granted by the District Superintendent of Police. The rule mentions the fee to be charged and states that the permit shall be in form A set forth in the schedule to the rules and that the District Superintendent of Police shall enter on the permit the maximum number of passengers, including driver and also cleaner, conductor, or agent, if any, and the quantity of luggage or the maximum weight of goods which may be carried at any one time by such vehicle.2. The facts of the case were that the oppone...
The Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1937
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR946
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated December 21, 1934, which dismissed the appellants' suit, in reversal of a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat, dated April 30, 1928, under which the appellants obtained decree for the sum of Rs. 25,820 with future interest at six per cent.2. On April 7, 1925, the appellants consigned fifty-eight bales of cotton piece goods to the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company, at Surat, for carriage to Sealdah on the Eastern Bengal Railway, a Government railway, on the terms of Risk-note B. In order to reach the system of the Eastern Bengal Railway, the consignment had to be carried for a considerable distance over the system of the respondent's East Indian Railway, which may be referred to as the E.I. Railway.3. Risk-note B is in the form approved by the Governor-General in Council under Section 72(2)(b) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, for use when the goo...
Pemraj Mulchand Marwadi Vs. Rajibai Fulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom63; (1937)39BOMLR1069; 173Ind.Cas.367
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an appeal in a mortgage suit brought by the respondents against the appellant. The mortgage was not denied, but the defendant pleaded that he was an agriculturist and prayed for instalments. His principal contention, however, was that at the date of the mortgage he had no interest in the property which he could mortgage. The learned Judge accepted the plea of the defendant being an agriculturist and ordered accounts to be taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. He rejected the contention that the defendant was not entitled to mortgage the property. This last contention is based upon certain facts which may now be shortly stated.2. The appellant who was the natural son of one Laduram Lachchimandas was taken in adoption during his minority by one Mulchand Dulraj on June 15, 905. On the same day a deed was executed by Laduram and subsequently registered. After reciting the fact of adoption, the deed was in the terms following :-Between you and me it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »