Mumbai Court August 1938 Judgments
The Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Company, Limited Vs. the Swadesh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom118; (1939)41BOMLR182
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents are the Swadeshi Mills Company, Bombay, one of the Tata group of mills. The defendants-appellants are the Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Company, Ahmedabad. Both firms manufacture cotton goods, including dhoties of various kinds. On these goods they stamp or affix their respective trade-marks, the plaintiffs' being a lotus flower and other marks and the defendants' a coloured picture of Yeshoda, the mother of Krishna, milking a cow. Below the trade-marks proper they both stamp numbers in large black figures. Plaintiffs call their number their cipher. It indicates goods of a particular description. Thus the number 24410 means dhoties 44' wide by ten yards long of a certain quality. Their dhoties of this size and quality are said to have a great sale in Northern India and they allege that this number has come to be associated with goods of their manufacture in Cawnpore, Delhi and other places, they having made use of it since 1910. It is all...
Tag this Judgment!Abdeali Kadarbhai Vora Vs. District Government Pleader
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom146; (1939)41BOMLR180
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Judge of Kaira fining the applicant Rs. 250 under Section 10 of the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923. An application was made by the Government Pleader of Kaira to the District Court alleging that the present applicant had failed to render accounts under Section 3 of the Wakf Act and asking that he might be dealt with under Section 10 of the same Act. On that application the District Judge directed notice to issue, and subsequently he heard the application. The present applicant made two applications for adjournment in1 order to put in a written statement, and those applications were granted; but he put in no written statement, and ultimately his pleader withdrew on the ground that he had no instructions. Conduct of that sort does not enlist my sympathy, but the point raised on this application is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.2. Under Section 3 of the ori...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Kripashankar Vs. Ratilal Balkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom261; (1939)41BOMLR497
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in a suit to recover possession with mesne profits of certain house property at Surat and agricultural lands situated at Kosad in the Olpad Taluka of the Surat District. That property is a portion of the estate which was once the coparcenery property of one Bhai-shankar and his two sons Mulshankar and Balkrishna. Bhaishankar died in 1890 leaving behind the said two sons. Mulshankar died childless on August 9, 1893, as a member of the undivided family. His widow Bai Suraj survived him. During Mulshankar's lifetime all the joint family property was entered in his name in the Government records, and after his death the Collector substituted the name of his widow Bai Suraj in his place. In the normal course of things the joint family property including the disputed property upon the death of Mulshankar would vest in his surviving brother Balkrishna. But it appears that Bai Suraj successful...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shankar Sayaji Dalvl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom489; (1938)40BOMLR1106
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Ratnagiri asking us to quash the prosecution of a police patel of a village on the ground that no sanction from Government was obtained under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The charge against the police patel is that in a case before him of abuse which he tried under Section 14 of the Village Police Act, he held that the complaint was groundless and dismissed it, but in forwarding the record and proceedings under Section 17 he stated that he had convicted the accused. He is alleged therefore to have committed offences under Sections 218, 219, 220, 500 and 197 of the Indian Penal Code ; and the question is whether Government sanction to the prosecution is required.2. Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that-When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, or when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Venkatesh Naik Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom183; (1939)41BOMLR257
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the lower Court, purchased survey No. 399 of Mangoli from one Dastgir in 1926. Seven years before that, on May 19, 1919, Dastgir had taken a tagavi loan of Rs. 2,000 from Government for the purpose of weeding the land and for making a stone pavement in a part of it. Under the terms of the tagavi bond (exhibit 58), two other lands owned by Dastgir, survey Nos. 383 and 412, were hypothecated for the loan. In the same year, in which Dastgir sold survey No. 399 to the plaintiff, he also mortgaged the other two lands survey Nos. 383 and 412 to Mr. P.A. Desai. Dastgir failed to repay the tagavi loan in accordance with the terms of the bond and the Prant Officer ordered that the arrears due from Dastgir should be recovered by sale of one of the hypothecated lands, survey No. 383. Against that order an application was made to the Collector by Mr. Desai, to whom the land had been mortgaged, and the Collector ordered that survey No. 399, t...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Ramkumar Vs. Akbarbhai Fakhruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom309; (1939)41BOMLR538
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000 and interest thereon being the amount of two loans of Rs. 2,500 each granted by them to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs sued defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as the principal debtors and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 as the alleged sureties for the repayment of the amount! of the two loans by defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The plaintiffs seek to hold defendants Nos. 3 to 5 liable for the amount as sureties under an agreement dated September 25, 1933, and made between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as principal debtors, defendants Nos. 3 to 5 as sureties and Bhawanidas & Co., a firm of hundi brokers, described in the agreement as creditors' agents.3. The plaintiffs say that prior to the agreement of September 25, 1933, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had borrowed Rs. 2,500 from the plaintiffs and the loan had been renewed from time to time, and the last of such renewals before the agreement was dated September 9, 1933. The plaintiffs say th...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Laxman Zodage Vs. Dalsukh Manchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom254; (1939)41BOMLR470
Norman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit filed under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff's case was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with defendant No. 3 as surety had executed a mortgage in his favour and then by various devices, including a post-dated cherub which was later dishonored, prevented the plaintiff from presenting the mortgage for registration until the four months allowed by law had expired. It was therefore necessary to get the delay condoned by the Registrar under Section 25 of the Act, and an application was lodged with the Sub-Registrar as provided by Sub-section (2). The Registrar, however, refused to condone the delay and the Sub-Registrar made an order 'Registration refused'. Plaintiff then filed the present suit. The trial Judge decreed the suit.2. On appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 it is argued that no suit lay under Section 77 because no appeal was made to the Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing reg...
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Radhakisan Vs. Ramdayal Ramnarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom112; (1939)41BOMLR176
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Ahmednagar and it raises a question in execution. The facts are that in the year 1930 the present appellants obtained an ex parte decree in the Thana Court, and they applied to execute that decree in the Court of Ahmednagar. The defendants asked for a stay of execution, and the Court granted a stay on terms that respondent No. 6 on this appeal became surety for the judgment-debtor. A surety bond was executed (exhibit 14), which stated that the defendants had applied for stay of execution in the Thana Court and that on that application the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana passed an order that if the defendants furnished a fit and solvent surety for the decretal amount in the First Class Court at Ahmednagar the execution proceedings should be stayed. Accordingly, respondent No. 6 became surety for the defendants to the extent of Rs. 3,400 and he agreed with the Court that the defendants shou...
Tag this Judgment!Revappa Nandappa Hattarki Vs. Babu Sidappa Erandole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom61; (1938)40BOMLR1275
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of law which has given rise to some difference of opinion amongst the High Courts in India.2. The plaintiffs were entitled to a simple mortgage made in the year 1926, and in this suit, which was filed on October 3, 1933, they sought to enforce that mortgage by an order for sale of the property and for repayment of any deficiency arising on the sale.3. The trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable, having regard to Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The Indian Partnership Act came into operation on October 1, 1932, but by virtue of Section 1, Sub-section (3), Section 69 of the Act: only came into force on October 1, 1933, that is two days before this suit was filed. Section 69, Sub-section (2), provides that :-No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been show...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarrao Dattatraya Nadkarni Vs. Shantibai Shankarrao Nadkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1201
Norman, J. 1. The only point for decision in this appeal is whether the succession to the estate of one Mangesh is governed by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, Act II of 1929. If it is so governed, then respondent No. 1 is the heir; if it is not so governed, then the appellant (original plaintiff) and the remaining respondents are the heirs.2. Mangesh died in 1911 and his estate passed to his widow Girijabai who died in 1933, that is to say after Act II had come into force.3. The plaintiff's case is that Act II does not govern the succession because Mangesh died before it came into force, and at the time he filed this suit he had one authority in his favour, viz., Gavarammal v. Manikammal I.L.R. (1933) Mad. 718. Unfortunately for him that decision has since been overruled by a full bench of the Madras High Court in Lakshmi v. Anantharama (1937) Mad. 948 and the same view is now taken by all other High Courts before whom the question has come. (See Rajpali Kunwar v. Sarju R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »