Mumbai Court February 1940 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.
Mallikarjunagowda Rudragowda Patil Vs. Venkawa Ramchandrappa Sawkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom313; (1940)42BOMLR600
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Dharwar.2. The property in suit originally belonged to one Rudragouda, who died in the year 1914 leaving a widow Basavva but no son. Basavva took possession of the suit property and remained in possession until the year 1934 when she adopted the present appellant. In the year 1924 Basavva incurred certain debts which in this appeal it is admitted were for legal necessity and were therefore binding on her husband's estate. She gave a promissory note to secure those debts, which promissory note passed to respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. In the year 1928 she filed a suit to recover the amount due under the promissory note from Basavva, and on August 26, 1928, a decree in her favour was passed against Basavva. Under that decree the suit property, which had belonged to Rudragouda, was attached and brought to sale, and respondent No. 3 became the purchaser of the property.3. The plaintiff, a...
Pratapchand Ramchand and Co. Vs. Jehangirji Bomanji Chinoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom257; (1940)42BOMLR497
Blackwell, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs claim to recover Rs. 3,880-5-0 with further interest thereon at two per cent, per Gujarati month with monthly rests from October 13, 1939, till payment, a declaration that they have a first charge on certain property consisting of furniture and a motor car mentioned in the plaint, and for a preliminary mortgage decree in respect of that property. The defendant denies the amount alleged to have been advanced, and alleges that on a proper account being taken on the basis set out in paragraph 2 of his written statement a much smaller sum than that claimed would be found due to the plaintiffs. The defendant also puts the plaintiffs to prove their allegation that they are a firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Five issues were raised of which the first is, whether the plaintiffs are a firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act of 1932. It was agreed by learned counsel that I should try that issue as a preliminary iss...
Bhagwandas Purshottamdas Kapadia Vs. Chunilal Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom291; (1940)42BOMLR518
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a decision of the full Court of the Small Cause Court, which reversed the decision of the trial Judge.2. The plaintiff is a broker and a member of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association. In November, 1937, the plaintiff purchased on behalf of the defendant fifty ordinary shares of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, the price being approximately Rs. 350. Nothing turns on the exact price. The purchase was made for December vaida. By December the shares had fallen heavily in value, and the primary obligation of the client was to take up and pay for the shares which he had bought through his broker, and the broker would have to carry the transaction through on the Exchange. If the client did not desire to pay for the shares, he could, of course, close the transaction by selling the shares at the December price and paying the difference to his broker. He, however, wanted to carry the shares over through a d...
Balappa Tammanna Tammannavar Vs. Dyamappa Bhusappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom415; (1940)42BOMLR872
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this application is whether the appeal of the applicant is in time. The judgment appealed from was pronounced on June 1 and the decree was signed on June 15. On August 28 the applicant applied for a copy of the decree, and a copy was supplied to him on September 5. He filed his appeal on September 13. The time allowed for filing an appeal under Article 156 of the Indian Limitation Act is, ninety days from the date of the decree, and under Order XX, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, the date of the decree is the date on which the judgment was pronounced, so that the applicant had ninety days from June 1. That would expire on September 1 or thereabouts, and he filed his appeal, as I said, on September 13. But under Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree is to be excluded from the ninety days. It has been held by the Privy Council that ' the time requisite' means the time properly re...
Ambedas Kashibhai AmIn Vs. Vadilal Chhaganlal Choksey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom272; (1940)42BOMLR515
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against a refusal by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana to allow Mr. Purohit, an advocate enrolled on the Original Side of this High Court, to plead in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Thana without filing a vakalatnama under Order III, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code. That rule provides that no pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. Then Sub-rule (5) provides that no pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and giving certain particulars. Then there is a proviso which excludes from the operation of Sub-rule (5) any pleader engaged to plead ...
J.C. Eno Limited Vs. Vishnu Chemical Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom3; (1940)42BOMLR924
Blackwell, J.1. This is a passing off action. The plaintiffs have over a long period of time manufactured and sold in the Indian markets and elsewhere in large quantities a saline under the names ' Eno ' and ' Fruit Salt.' That saline is sold in octagonal shaped bottles packed in cardboard cartons enclosed in wrappers. Exhibit (C) is a specimen of the plaintiffs' goods, and I will discuss the get-up thereon later. The plaintiffs' case is that their saline so manufactured and sold, and bearing the marks ' Eno' and ' Fruit Salt,' has acquired a very wide reputation throughout India, and that the marks ' Eno ' and ' Fruit Salt' are well known to the trade and the public as denoting saline of the plaintiffs' manufacture, and that such saline is commonly asked for by purchasers by the name ' Fruit Salt' or ' Eno's Fruit Salt.' The plaintiffs complain that the defendants have been selling and offering for sale in Bombay and other places in India saline not of the plaintiffs' manufacture unde...
Emperor Vs. Narottam Lalbhai Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom265; (1940)42BOMLR482
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, and it raises a question of procedure on a prosecution under Section 60(b)(i) of the Factories Act, 1934.2. The learned Sessions Judge referred the question to us because he thinks it is not free from doubt, and that it is desirable to get a decision. But I rather gather that his own opinion is not very strongly in favour of our accepting his reference. Government support the reference, which has rather surprised me, since I should have thought that it was tol the public interests to oppose it, because, if we accept the reference, I am satisfied that serious evasions of the Factories Act may follow. 3. The point which arises is this. The accused is the occupier of the Arvind Mills in Ahmedabad, and he was prosecuted under Section 60 of the Factories Act in respect of offences under Section s 37 and 42, that is in substance for allowing workmen to work beyond the prescribed hours. The complaint again...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›