Mumbai Court August 1939 Judgments
In Re: Ardeshir Phirozshaw Murzban
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom42; (1939)41BOMLR1253
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The facts which give rise to this revision application are that on August 1 last a riot took place in the City of Bombay, and the Chief Presidency Magistrate made an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed against the present applicant, the editor, printer and publisher of the 'Jam-e-Jamshed' newspaper. The order consisted of two parts, and I will refer to it in detail in a moment. On August 3, the learned Magistrate cancelled the first part of the order. On August 7, this petition was presented, and on August 9 the learned Magistrate cancelled the second part of the order.2. The learned Advocate General has argued as preliminary paints, first, that this Court cannot interfere in revision because there is no order to revise, the order having been cancelled. But that, in my opinion, is not a point of any substance. It frequently happens that this Court is called upon to revise an order of conviction after the sentence passed by the conv...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rautmal Kanumal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom40; (1939)41BOMLR1232
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Satara, in which he asks us to set aside an order made by the Honorary First Class Magistrate, Satara, cancelling the bail bond of the accused.2. The facts are that the accused was charged under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was brought before the Court of the First Class City Magistrate, Satara, and that learned Magistrate released him on bail on his own recognizance and the bond of two sureties, the conditions of the bond being that the accused should attend at the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, on every day of the preliminary inquiry into the offence charged against him, and should the case be sent for trial to the Sessions Court or to any other Court, he should appear before that Court. The case was then transferred from the Court of the City Magistrate to that of the Honorary Magistrate, which I will assume is a different Court. In the course of the trial by the Honorar...
Tag this Judgment!Paragji Bhulabhai Vs. Bhagwanji Bawabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom14; (1939)41BOMLR1231
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Surat, which raises a short point of practice. The accused was prosecuted on a private prosecution, and was convicted, and he appealed to the City Magistrate of Surat. The learned Magistrate held that the complainant's advocate was not entitled to be heard on the appeal, but only the Public Prosecutor could be heard. The District Magistrate was then moved in revision and he has referred the matter to us, because in his opinion the complainant was entitled to be heard by an advocate, and he says that it is the practice obtaining in the District of Surat, as in other Districts, that in appeals in private cases opponents' pleaders are heard.2. I think the strict rule is that in an appeal against a conviction only the Crown is entitled to be served with notice, and heard. Notice is served on an officer on behalf of the Local Government under Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in my opinion nobody...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulam HusseIn Rawji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1326
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Sections 4(a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The facts proved are that the accused was receiving bets in a passage on the ground floor of a house in a road leading out of Jacob Circle on May 26, 1939. A marked coin proved to have been used for the purpose of placing a bet, a notebook and a sutta chit were found in this passage, and, I think, they are instruments of gaming. It is not shown that the accused had any interest whatever in the passage. He lives at Bhendi Bazaar, and as far as the evidence goes he was a mere trespasser in the passage. The evidence shows that he had been seen in this passage on two previous occasions, but there is no evidence that his user of the passage was with the knowledge or permission of any person who owns or controls such passage.2. The first question which arises is whether in those circumstances the accused can be convicted under Section 4(a). Th...
Tag this Judgment!Raymond Thornton Vs. Marguerite Elaine Thornton
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom37; (1939)41BOMLR1234
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a husband's petition for divorce under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1926, the ground of divorce being desertion by the wife without cause for three years which is made a ground for divorce under the Act of 1937. The facts appearing from the evidence of the husband, which I accept, and the letters from his wife, which he puts in, admit of no doubt.2. The parties were married in 1922, and the husband and wife came to India in July, 1926, the husband being employed in the Indian Radio and Cable Communications Co., Ltd., which is an Indian company, and the parties lived together in Bombay until March, 1929, when the wife went to England, taking with her the only child of the marriage, a son who had been born in October, 1926. The husband says that in the normal course of events he will remain in India in his present employment until he is fifty-five years of age, which will be sixteen years hence. But he is domiciled in England, and i...
Tag this Judgment!irappa Lokappa Vastrad Vs. Rachayya Madiwalayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom118; (1939)41BOMLR1300
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal raises a short and interesting question with regard to the law of adoption. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent before us, claimed to be the adopted son of one Shivalingayya, and filed the suit to recover possession of his half share in the suit property from the first defendant Irappa, who was his paternal uncle, and the second defendant Gurbasappa, who was the son of Irappa. Shivalingayya, the plaintiff's adoptive father, and his younger brother Irappa were the sons of one Lokappa who died in the year 1915. Shivalingayya himself died in 1925. At the time of his death he was joint with his brother Irappa. He left a widow Parawwa who was defendant No. 3 in the case and who is respondent No. 2 before us. On September 18, 1933, Irappa and his son Gurbasappa, who were at the time the only members of the coparcenary, divided. The partition deed (exhibit 70) mentions that the partition had been effected because Gurbasappa, who had come of age, had taken t...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Dossabhai Billimoria Vs. Bai Moti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom90; (1939)41BOMLR1310
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the Assistant Judge of Thana. It raises a point of law which has given rise to a certain amount of difference of opinion amongst the High Courts in India, the question being; whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which came into operation on April 1, 1930, applies to transactions which took place before that date.2. In the present case the plaintiff transferred to the defendant certain immoveable property in February and March, 1926, and the purchaser was let into possession, but the documents of transfer were not registered. This suit was filed on June 20, 1935, and by it the plaintiff, i.e. the vendor, seeks to recover possession of the property, her case being that the defendant cannot rely on the transfers to himself because they are not registered and cannot be given in evidence by reason of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. The answer of the defendant is that he is entitled to give his transfers in ev...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Dixit Vs. Senior Inspector of Factories
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom87; (1939)41BOMLR1283
Divatia, J.1. This revisional application arising under the Payment of Wages Act is preferred by original opponents Nos. 1 and 3 against whom, along with opponent No. 2, the original application was filed by the Senior Inspector of Factories. The first and the second opponents were described as co-owners of a mill called the Vimal Mills Ltd. at Ahmedabad and the third was described as the manager. It was filed to recover Rs. 2,000 and odd as the delayed wages of workers in the mill under s, 15 of the Act under which the authority, in this case the Stipendiary Magistrate, is to hear the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under Section 3, and, after such further inquiry as may be necessary, direct the payment of the delayed wages.2. Various defences were taken on behalf of the opponents. One of them was that the owner or employer, who was opponent No. 1, (opponent No. 2 was not found to be a co-owner), could not be impleaded in the application...
Tag this Judgment!Harilal Nathalal Talati Vs. Bhailal Pranlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom148; (1940)42BOMLR165
Indarnarayen, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Nadiad dismissing the plaintiff's suit in which the plaintiff prayed (a) for a declaration that he is entitled to a half share in the joint family property which would come to the share of the defendant after the date of the award, (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of any property of his share either by sale, mortgage, gift, will, or otherwise, (c) for an order directing the defendant to pay to him Rs. 40 per year in future out of the sum of Rs. 900 which the defendant has been getting every year by virtue of the award, and (d) for recovery from the defendant of Rs. 80 for a period of two years from January 24, 1931, to January 24, 1933.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that one Pranlal, who had inherited property from his father Premchand, died leaving three sons : Bhailal the defendant in this case a son by his first wife, the other two being Na...
Tag this Judgment!Rudrappa Yellappa Sattennanavar Vs. Mallappa Malleshappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom95; (1939)41BOMLR1277
Broomfield, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Dharwar dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for a half share of property in the possession of the defendant-respondent.2. The material facts are these. Yellappa and Mallappa were joint brothers. Yellappa died first leaving a widow Bandewa. Mallappa died leaving a widow Basava and a son Virappa. Virappa the last surviving coparcener died unmarried. Basava adopted the defendant and a few months afterwards Bandewa adopted the plaintiff who claimed a half share in the family property in the possession of the defendant-respondent.3. The District Judge dismissed the claim relying on Balu Sakhmam v. Lahoo Sambhaji [1937] Bom. 508 39 Bom. L.R. 382 The facts in the full bench case were that the estate of the last surviving coparcener passed to his widow who remarried and left the family whereupon his sister became the owner. The contest was between a purchaser from the sister and a son adopted by the widow o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »