Mumbai Court January 1940 Judgments
P.J. Rogers Vs. Shrinivas Gopal Kawale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom266; (1940)42BOMLR478
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application purporting to be made under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the object of which is to induce the Court to expunge certain observations criticising a witness made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Poona in a criminal appeal which came before him. There has been no application in revision against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, and of course no appeal lies; nor has the Court thought fit on its own motion to call for the record, and in granting a rule, this Court queried whether there was jurisdiction to entertain an application to expunge words from a judgment, when the Court is not called upon to pronounce upon the merits of the decision itself. It is obvious that, if the jurisdiction exists, its' exercise must place the Court in an anomalous position. The Court must go through the record of a case in which it is not called upon to act judicially at the instance of a party who is not aggrieved by the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Vazirbhai Sultanbhai Tamboli Vs. Gadmal Nathmal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom263; (1940)42BOMLR511
Kania, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge at Nasik. The only point to be determined is whether the plaintiff's suit for taking accounts of the partnership business is barred by the law of limitation. Both the lower Courts have held the claim to be time-barred. In January, 1933, before the plaint was filed, the plaintiff gave a notice of demand for accounts. According to the plaint that was because there was an agreement between the parties the terms whereof are recited in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The trial Court upheld the agreement but the lower appellate Court came to a contrary decision. In second appeal I cannot go into that question of fact which is based on oral evidence. The appellant's contention, if it rested on that agreement only, must be rejected.2. It is however urged on behalf of the appellant that the inference drawn by the lower Courts, from the fact that no business was done after 1924, that there was a dissolution of partnership is...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramji Vala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom279; (1940)42BOMLR475
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the Sessions Judge of Surat under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and on admission this Court gave notice to the accused to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced.2. The case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge with a jury, and Mr. Kantawala for the accused has claimed the right in this appeal to go behind the verdict of the jury on questions of fact. The question whether, on a notice to enhance sentence passed on an accused convicted on a trial with a jury, the accused can challenge the verdict of the jury on facts, does not seem: to have been considered by this Court.3. Under Section 423, subs. (2), of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is provided that nothing therein contained shall authorize the Court to alter or reverse the verdict of a jury, unless it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge, or to a misunderstanding on the part of the...
Tag this Judgment!Hori Ram Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR619
Viscount Maughan, J.1. Their Lordships do not require to hear counsel for the Crown.2. This is an application for special leave to appeal in forma pauperis from a judgment of the Federal Court of India, and it has the distinction of being the first application for such leave from that Court.3. The question which arises is as to the true construction of Section 270, Sub-section (1), of the Government of India Act, 1935. It is in these terms: ' No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown in India or Burma before the relevant date ', which is April 1, 1937, ' except with the consent', putting it shortly as applying to this particular case, ' of the Governor' of the Province in which the petitioner was employed. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this Section is in the nature of an exceptional Section which is intended to afford some measure of protection...
Tag this Judgment!Zumaklal Motiram Vs. Fulchand Tarachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom20; (1940)42BOMLR867
Macklin, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of a darkhast. The original plaintiff? sued in 1906 for partition of property in a suit in which the principal defendant was the father of the present respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff himself was the father of the present appellant. A decree was given allowing the plaintiff a share in the property of 61/2 annas and the principal defendant a share of 9 1/2 annas, and between then and the year 1919 five darkhasts were filed by the plaintiff, at which satisfaction of various amounts was obtained. In 1920 the three sons of the original plaintiff, who was then dead, brought a darkhast at which commissioners were appointed to divide the rest of the property. On the application of the parties two pleaders and also an umpire were appointed to settle the partition. After they had worked for about a year the parties filed a statement before the arbitrators saying that they had settled the amount remaining due to the heirs of the origi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahomedalli Walijee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR473
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused was convicted under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Ordinance, V of 1939, read with Government Notification No. 3682/33(b), General Department, published in the Government of Bombay Gazette, dated September 9, 1939. Under the notification of Government it is provided that prices are to be fixed according to the price prevalent on September 1, 1939, at a stage of the transaction) of sale in any area to whichthis order applies plus twenty per cent, on the amount of such price as the maximum price chargeable at such stage of the transaction of sale of the commodities mentioned below. One of the commodities mentioned below is rice of all kinds. So that what it comes to is, that dealers may not sell rice at more than twenty per cent, in excess of the price prevalent on September 1, 1939.2. The accused sold certain rice to a police agent on September 21 at Rs. 70 per Khandi. He gave evidence that he had purchased that rice on the day be...
Tag this Judgment!Gadadhur Mullick Vs. the Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR621
George Rankin, J.1. One Shib Chandra Mullick, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga, was possessed of considerable property moveable and immo veable, comprising a number of house properties in Calcutta and its suburbs, as well as zemindari property in the Sundarbans. He died on August 4, 1866, leaving him surviving a widow and an only son, Rishikesh Mullick. By his will, dated August 3, 1866, he appointed one Dwarkanath Bhanjoo, his son Rishikesh and the Administrator General of Bengal for the time being (who never acted) to be ' executors and trustees of this my will.' After providing for his widow's maintenance and residencei and giving pecuniary legacies to her and to certain other persons, he disposed of the residue of his property as follows:-I give devise and bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my property moveable and immoveable unto my Executors hereinafter named in trust as to one moiety thereof for my only son Rishikesh upon his attaining the age of twenty-one years a...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dayambai Sullemanji Vs. Mahomedalli Ebrahimji Arsiwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom410; (1940)42BOMLR919
Blackwell, J.1. This suit was filed on January 20, 1939, for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and absolutely entitled to the immoveable property mentioned in the plaint, for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to claim any charge on the property in respect of any moneys alleged to have been expended thereon, and for various other reliefs. A written statement and counter-claim was filed by the defendant on February 20, 1939. The defendant on coming to the counter-claim set out a further title similar to the title in a plaint making himself plaintiff to the counter-claim and making the plaintiff to the suit defendant to the counter-claim. By the counter-claim the defendant asked for a declaration that there was due and owing to the plaintiff to the counter-claim Rs. 15,097 and for a declaration that the plaintiff to the counter-claim has a charge on the property and the rents arising therefrom in respect of the said sum and for a preliminary mortgage decree. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ruttonji Ardeshir Wadia Vs. the Assistant Development Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom260; (1940)42BOMLR506
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Assistant Judge at Thana in Land Acquisition Reference No. 7 of 1932. We are not concerned with the merits of the matter at this stage. The short point which arises for consideration is whether the lower Court was right in shutting out evidence and preventing parties from contending that compensation should be paid as the land was not required by Government for public purposes.2. The relevant facts are that under a kowl (grant by the Crown) which was granted before any Land Acquisition Act was in force, Government granted the particular property to the claimant's predecessor-in-title. Clause 16 of that grant is in these terms :-In the event of any quantity of ground being required by Government for roads or other public purposes, it should be given up by you (the Khot) on the usual terms of the mere remission of the assessment if the land in question be cultivated.In 1931 under the Land Acquisition Act a notification was published ...
Tag this Judgment!Smetham, Vs. Darashaw Eruchshaw Karanjawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom412; (1940)42BOMLR922
Blackwell, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case and discussing evidence bearing on the question of fact arising in the case came to the conclusion that an agreement for payment of costs was made between the parties. His Lordship then proceeded:] It was contended by Mr. Pardiwalla for the defendant that this suit was premature and would not lie inasmuch as, according to his submission, taxation of the bill of costs on the Original Side was a condition precedent to a right to demand payment of the costs and a fortiori to a right to sue for the recoveryl thereof, Mr. Pardiwalla referred to Rule 534 of the High Court Rules, which is as follows:-The Taxing Master shall tax the bills of costs on every side of the Court (except the Appellate Side) and in the Insolvency Court. All other bills of costs of attorneys shall also be taxed by him when he is directed to do so by a Judge's order.2. He argued that it was open to the plaintiffs to obtain an order from a Judge on th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›