Mumbai Court July 1939 Judgments
Chunilal Jethalal Vs. Ahmedabad Borough Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom41; (1939)41BOMLR1249
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge of Ahmedabad. The applicant was charged with wheel tax under Section 73 (2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, and he paid a sum of Rs. 600 under protest, and in this suit he sues to recover that amount. The learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissed the suit.2. Section 73 (2) empowers a Municipality to impose a tax for the purposes of the Act including a tax on all vehicles used and kept for use within the said borough, whether they are actually within or outside the said borough.3. The applicant's first contention is that the vehicles in respect of which he has been taxed were not kept for use within the borough. On the findings of the learned Judge it is, in my opinion, impossible to maintain that contention. The learned Judge held, I think rightly, that the words 'kept for use within the borough' meant kept for normal use within the borough, and no doubt where a veh...
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahim Sherkhan Pathan Vs. Hajratkhan Mohiddinkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom49; (1939)41BOMLR1305
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Divatia. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal are briefly these:The appellant was defendant No. 5 in a suit of 1924 which was instituted by one Abdul Aziz to recover possession by partition of his share in the assets of a partnership business which he maintained was a business in which one of the partners was his deceased father through whom he claimed. It was alleged that the partnership had already been dissolved and that its entire assets had come into the hands of defendant No. 1 in the suit, namely, Haji Hajaratkhan. The trial Court dismissed the claim on various grounds, particularly on the ground that the plaintiff's father was not interested in the partnership business. An appeal was taken to this Court by the plaintiff Abdul Aziz against that order. But after the appeal was filed Abdul Aziz applied for withdrawing from the appeal. Before that application was granted one Manjrekar, claim...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Krishnaji Madhusudan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1114
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted under Sections 4(a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Bom. IV of 1887) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 with seven weeks' rigorous imprisonment in default.2. The facts appearing in evidence are these. Sub-Inspector Shevde had received information that gambling was going on in a passage on the first floor of Keshavji Nathoo Sailor's Chawl on Frere Road. After verifying the information, on April 2, 1938, he marked an eight anna coin and gave it to one Pandu Tukaram to bet on the figures 5 and 2 as a double. Pandu then went to the chawl accompanied by a police constable, who stood on the staircase while Pandu went up to the accused who was in the passage. The punter laid the bet with the accused and informed the Sub-Inspector of it, whereupon the place was raided. The accused was found alone in the passage and in his hand tied up in a handkerchief was the sum of Rs. 7-9-0 in which the marked coin...
Tag this Judgment!Umabai Shankar Borgaonkar Vs. Shankar Hari Borgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom44; (1939)41BOMLR1269
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of the construction of Order XXXIII, Rule 15. The question arises in this way. The plaintiff-appellant is the wife of defendant-respondent. She made an application to sue in forma pauperis claiming separate maintenance and residence. The application was opposed by the husband on the ground that she was not a pauper and it was rejected and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the opponent. Notice had been sent to the Government Pleader, but he did not appear, and therefore no costs were incurred on behalf of Government.2. Order XXXIII, Rule 15, is in these terms :An order refusing to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper shall be a bar to any subsequent application of the like nature by him in respect of the same right to sue ; but the applicant shall be at liberty to institute a suit in the ordinary manner in respect of such right, provided that he first pays the costs (if any) incurred by the Provincial Government and...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lavji Mandan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom452; (1939)41BOMLR980
Lokur, J.1. The offence said to have been committed by the accused consists in his publication of the cover page of his periodical called Garjana, containing an exhortation to the 'Hindu society' that a 'human beast' like the complainant 'ought to be done to death like a dog'. The question is whether this instigation of the Hindu public to murder the complainant falls under Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, it falls under Section 117, which prescribes punishment for abetting the commission of an offence by the public generally, or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten. Section 115 runs as follows :Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable ...
Tag this Judgment!The Western Electric Company, Limited Vs. Kailas Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom60; (1939)41BOMLR1290
Kania, J.1. This is a motion for recording a compromise. The terms of the compromise, which are reduced to writing, are not disputed. They are found in two letters which are annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the motion. On behalf of the plaintiffs, who oppose this application, it is urged that their consent was obtained on a representation that the Northern India Development Corporation Ltd., who were to pass a writing under the agreed terms promising to pay Rs, 6,500 to the plaintiffs by monthly instalments of Rs. 200 and Rs. 300, was in a sound financial condition. It is alleged that that representation was false to the knowledge of the agent of the defendants who came to effect the compromise. It is alleged that the corporation held a meeting in the middle of April, 1939, and passed a resolution to go into voluntary liquidation. The company later on has been ordered to be wound up subject to the supervision of the Court. Having regard to the short period within which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Raychand Vs. Narayan Motiram Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom1; (1939)41BOMLR1217
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Bijapur, disposing of two companion suits brought by the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff is or was an oil merchant. For the purposes of his trade he used to borrow money from the defendant-appellant shop. He became heavily indebted to the defendant who brought a suit on a promissory note and got the plaintiff's immoveable property in Bijapur attached before judgment. Then the parties came together and there was a settlement. The dispute is as to the nature of this settlement and what the intentions of the parties were, but there is no doubt about what they purported to do. The plaintiff executed two sale-deeds, exhibits 36 and 37, dated March 10 and 14, 1931, by which he purported to sell his properties in Bijapur out and out for Rs. 11,000 and Rs. 800 respectively. The deeds were registered on March 14 and they admittedly formed part of one transaction. On March 11 the plaintiff exe...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Mahadeo Rasal Vs. Godulal Jethmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom20; (1939)41BOMLR1223
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh. The plaintiffs instituted this action on June 3, 1935, to recover compensation or damage for illegal distraint of their property by the Mamlatdar of Taloda through the Circle Inspector on May 20, 1933. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 127-2-9, which was due as arrear of land revenue from certain Bhils who were holders of some lands, was recovered under a warrant issued by the Mamlatdar 'out of the amount lying in the plaintiffs' cupboard'. The plaintiffs alleged that the Mamlatdar's act was ultra vires and without jurisdiction, and that their reputation had suffered in consequence.2. Among the defences raised to this action the first was that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as on June 12, 1934, the plaintiffs had instituted another action to recover the sum removed from them under the alleged illegal distraint with interest in which this claim could have been added, and that the failu...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Kalyandas Shah Vs. Jagjiwandas Gulabdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom54; (1939)41BOMLR1263
Indarnarayen, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Broach in special civil suit No. 391 of 1932. The plaintiff herein sued the defendants on a promissory-note dated November 5, 1929, for a sum of Rs. 6,784-13-6. The promissory-note sued upon is signed individually by the three defendants and there is no mention therein of any partnership firm of Chhaganlal Kalyandas. The promissory note, as usual, contains a promise to pay the amount thereof on demand to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a notice of demand on October 20, 1932, and filed this suit on non-compliance thereof on November 4, 1932.2. The defendants filed written statements inter alia pleading that they were agriculturists within the meaning of the term under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and alleging that it was agreed at the time when the promissory-note in suit was passed that it was not to be enforced, but that the amount thereof was to be adjusted in the making up of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lallubhai Bhikhabhai Chunawalla Vs. Ratanchand Raichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom82; (1939)41BOMLR1237
Indarnarayen, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat dismissing the plaintiffs' claim against defendant No. 1, the drawers of the hundi in question. The facts are summarised by the trial Judge and are shortly as follows.2. The plaintiffs had a current deposit account with defendant No. 1, who also did business at Surat. The plaintiffs wanted to remit a sum of Rs. 6,000 to the Bombay firm of Ishverlal Amthalal, and in order to enable them to do so they applied to defendant No. 1 for a 'Namjogi hundi' drawn by defendant No. 1 and made payable to Ishverlal Amthalal, whose name was mentioned in the hundi as the payee. A sum of Rs. 1-14-0 was taken for the 'hundiaman' charges and debited to the plaintiffs' account, and the sum of Rs. 6,000 was similarly debited. The plaintiffs on receiving the hundi sent it by ordinary post to Ishverlal Amthalal on April 22, 1935. But the cover containing this hundi appears to have gone astray in post and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »