Mumbai Court June 1939 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.
Mahadeo Sunder Mehta Vs. Khanderao Sitaram Tipnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom526; (1939)41BOMLR1166
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed in execution proceedings by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana.2. The appellants obtained a money decree against the respondents, and presented darkhast No. 73 of 1931 to recover the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the respondents' property. The darkhast was presented on February 12, 1931, and when the notices were served on them, respondent No. 1 put in his written statement (exhibit 13) on September 8, 1931, alleging inter alia that he was an agriculturist. Subsequently on December 19, 1931, the plaintiffs put in a purshis (exhibit 16) stating that under; a, compromise the had agreed to grant six months time to the judgment-debtors to pay off the decretal amount, and that the judgment-debtors had agreed to waive their contention raised by respondent No. 1 in exhibit 13. The respondents' pleader, however, stated on January 12, 1932, that he had no instructions regarding the alleged compromise. The property was att...
Emperor Vs. Baptist De Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom465; (1939)41BOMLR974
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Baptist De Souza who has been convicted of offences under Sections 4(a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act.2. The appellant, who has described himself as a motor mechanic, lives in room No. 25 in Bombay Development Department Chawl No. 17 at Worli. Sub-Inspector Tonpe of the Delisle Road Police Station, having reason to suspect that he was using this room for gambling purposes, obtained a warrant for the search of the premises. He then followed the procedure which has come to be common form in these cases. He marked some coins, gave them to one Jairam Mahadev, a bogus punter, and instructed him to lay bets on certain figures at the place of the accused. The Sub-Inspector and the punter and some constables then proceeded to the Chawl. The punter was sent upstairs with one of the police constables and the Sub-Inspector waited below. After a few minutes the punter returned and said that the bet was laid. The Sub-Inspector th...
Brijmohandas Damodardas Vs. Sadashiv Laxman Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom5; (1939)41BOMLR1190
Lokur, J.1. One Gopaldas Damodardas obtained a money decree against the respondents in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar on October 1, 1930. When the decretal amount fell due, he made an application to that Court on July 11, 1932, to have the decree transferred to the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Parner for execution. The order transferring the decree was passed on July 26, 1932, and the certificate of non-satisfaction was handed over to the decree-holder Gopaldas on August 8, 1932. Before Gopaldas presented an application for the execution of his decree in the Parner Court under Order XXI, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, he died on November 22, 1932. Nothing was done for nearly two years, and on August 18, 1934, the brother and sons of Gopaldas, claiming to be his legal representatives, presented darkhast No. 423 of 1934 in the Parner Court to recover the decretal amount in execution of the decree. The respondents were served with ...
Baba Kartar Singh Vs. Dayal Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated April 30, 1934, which varied a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Saharanpur dated April 29, 1929.2. The appeal arises out of a suit by the first respondent suing as the chela and successor under the terms of a will, for a declaration of his title and for possession and mesne profits of a certain immovable property, being a building situated in the Hindu Shrine of Hardwar, called, Haveli Buriawali and certain rooms or outhouses appertaining to it. It appears that there was a gift of this property at some ancient time to one Atma Ram who apparently held it as his own property. After his death, it went to his chela, Ashtabakar (it is not clear whether by will or by operation of law). After him it descended to his gurubhai or brother disciple Dhian Das and after his death it again went to the latter's chela Kishen Das. During his lifetime, Kishen Das held and enjoyed the property as his p...
Sayad MohiuddIn Sayad NasiruddIn Vs. Khatijabi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom489; (1939)41BOMLR1020
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights against defendant No. 1 whom he alleges to have married on May 30, 1934. The parties belong to the Shafi sect of Sunni Mahomedans, Defendant No. 1 contended that as she was an adult virgin at the date of the marriage, that as the marriage was performed without her consent and against her wishes, the marriage was invalid, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim restitution of conjugal rights against her. Both the lower Courts upheld her contention, and the suit was dismissed.2. It is not disputed in this Court that the parties are Sunni Mahomedans belonging to the Shafi sect, that at the date of the alleged marriage defendant No. 1 had attained puberty, and that the marriage was performed by her father against her wishes and without the consent either of herself or of her mother with whom she was then living in her maternal uncle's house.3. The only issue argued is whet...
The Trustees of Tribune Press Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1150
George Rankin, J.1. The Trustees of the Tribune Press, Lahore, appeal from the decision given on June 4, 1935, by the majority of the Judges composing a full bench of the High Court at Lahore upon a reference made to that Court under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. On January 31, 1933, the Income-tax Officer, Lahore, for the year of assess-1 ment 1932-3 assessed the appellants to tax upon an income of Rs. 61,629, calculated upon the figures for the previous year. No question now arises as to the amount of the assessment or the computation of the tax. The sole question is whether the income of the appellants is not exempt from tax under the first clause of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act.(3) This Act shall not apply to the following classes of income :- (i) Any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, and in the case of property so held in part only for such purposes, the income appl...
Emperor Vs. Kallappa Gurappa Kotagunshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom481; (1939)41BOMLR970
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. The accused in this case were charged with offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, and were convicted and ordered to pay fines of varying amount. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Dharwar set aside the convictions and acquitted the accused. The Government of Bombay has now appealed against the order of acquittal.2. The facts need only be mentioned very briefly. The Police Sub-Inspector of Hubli, having received information that accused No. 1 was using his house at Hubli as a common gaming house, obtained a special warrant from the Magistrate and searched the house on February 9, 1938. At the time of the raid seven persons were found sitting in the room and playing a game of cards called pettin-ata for money stakes. One of the seven persons absconded, and of the six who were charged in the case, one, accused No. 2, was examined as a witness. The Magistrate acquitted accused No. 6, and convicted Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.3. The ...
Surajmal Deoram Bhavsar Vs. Motiram Kalu Wani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom22; (1939)41BOMLR1177
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of Hindu Law as to how far a Hindu son is bound by the attachment and sale of his separated share in the family property in execution of a decree passed before his birth against his father for a debt not tainted with immorality or illegality, he being not made a party to the darkhast though it was filed after the partition between him and his father. The facts are simple. The defendant obtained a money decree against the plaintiff's father and another in original Suit No. 795 of 1923 on June 27, 1925. Thereafter the plaintiff was born, and he separated from his father in 1932. At the partition the property in suit was allotted to his share. In execution of the said decree in darkhast No. 778 of 1933 the property in suit was attached and sold by auction. The defendant himself purchased it at the auction on January 20, 1934, and obtained the sale certificate on June 5, 1934. The plaintiff was not a party to the execution proceedings....
C.P. Matthen Vs. the District Magistrate of Trivandrum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1119
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from (1) a judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Madras, dated November 4, 1938, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1,003 of 1938, which, on a reference by a division bench of the same Court, held that the orders of Pandrang Row J., a single Judge of the Court, on an application for writ of habeas corpus and relative applications, and dated October 21, 24, and 26, 1938, made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 986, 990 and 985 of 1938 respectively, were null and void, (2) a judgment and order of the said division bench, dated November 7, 1938, made in petition No. 1,003 in implement of the above judgment, and ( 3 ) a judgment and order of the said division bench, dated November 7, 1938, made in petition No. 985, dismissing the application for a writ of habeas corpus.2. The appellants challenge the validity of certain warrants issued by the Resident for the Madras States under Section 7 of the Indian Extradition Act (XV of 1903 ) to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›