Mumbai Court March 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.
Emperor Vs. NajmuddIn Ibrahimsaheb Bobade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR584
N.J. Wadia, J. 1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the accused by the Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, under Section 1 of the Bombay Markets and Fairs Act, IV of 1862. The accused who is a resident of Bhiwandi established a cattle market on his private land within municipal limits without obtaining permission from the District Magistrate as required by Section 1 of the Bombay Markets and Fairs Act. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and a revision application against the conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Thana. The accused has come in revision to this Court.2. The only contention urged before us is that the provisions of the Bombay Markets and Fairs Act of 1862 conflict with the provisions of Section 139 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901, and that the provisions of the Bombay District Municipal Act, being a later and a special Act, must override the provisions of the earlier general Act of 1862. Section 1 of the Bomb...
Lingappa Rayappa Desai Vs. Kadappa Bapurao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom345; (1940)42BOMLR832
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The appellant claimed to be the adopted son of one Rayappa Shankarappa Desai and sued to recover from the defendant possession of the plaint properties with past and future mesne profits. The parties belong to a desai family which owns deshgat and patilki watans in several villages in the Athni Taluka of the Belgaum District and in the Jamkhandi and Kurundwad States. The plaintiff's father Rayappa Desai died in the year 1914. His senior widow Yamunabai adopted the plaintiff on October 15, 1927. Rayappa had a, brother Mallappa who died in the year 1917. In the year 1887 Rayappa applied to the revenue authorities that as he was heavily in debt and much harassed by the proceedings taken by his creditors against both his property and his person, he desired that his name should be removed from the khata and the pali, or right of service, and the name of his younger brother Mallappa Shankarappa, who was joint with him, should be entered. Mallappa consented to this, and after...
Sir Jamshedji Jeejibhoy, Bart. Vs. Sorabji Byramji Warden
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR719
George Rankin, J.1. This is an appeal by the representatives of the original plaintiff in a suit to enforce a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The suit was brought on the original side of the High Court of Bombay on January 7, 1936, by an old lady named Jaiji Hirjibhoy Parekh. Her daughter Meherbai had married one Byramji Hirjibhoy Warden, father of the defendants. Byramji had died on October 26, 1924, leaving a will whereby he had appointed the defendants, his four elder sons, to be his executors. Probate had been granted to them in 1925.2. By his will dated October 6, 1922 (codicil of August 19, 1924), Byramji declared (cl. 11) that his immoveable properties were generally mortgaged and that it would take a long time before they could be sold at the best price after paying the mortgage debts. He accordingly authorised his executors to postpone the sale for any period not exceeding five years from the date of his death. He referred (cl. 12) to the fact that Bai Jaiji (the plaintiff...
Thomas Bear and Sons (India) Limited Vs. Prayag Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR734
Viscount Maugham, J.1. This appeal is against a) decree of a division bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated March 13, 1935. That Court affirmed the decree of the Additional District Judge of Cawnpore in an action brought by the appellants to restrain infringement of trade mark rights and passing-off. At the hearing before their Lordships the respondents were not represented; but the case of the appellants was placed before the Board with equal ability and fairness by their counsel.2. The appellants are manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and of tobacco described as ' Virginia Bird's Eye' smoked in pipes. These goods are marketed in a European style. Both the said cigarettes and the tobacco have from a date long before 1922 been sold in India (by the appellants and their predecessors) in packets and in tins bearing a mark the distinguishing feature of which is the representation of an elephant and the packets and tins of cigarettes have also borne the designation ...
Emperor Vs. Mukund Martu Bhujale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR481
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this application the principal point taken is that the applicant applied for an order on the complainant to produce certain accounts, and no order was made. Neither the application nor the order which the Court is said to have made upon the application nor any copy of such documents is before the Court. We are asked to stand this case over for a week in order that the documents may be secured. We desire to say that, although we adopt that course in this case, we are not going to adopt such a course in future. Those applying in revision to this Court must be prepared with their cases and with the documents in support. The Court will not send for the record unless there is sufficient material to justify that course, and will not stand a case over merely to enable a party to do what he should have done before presenting the application....
Dawarali Jafarali Saiyad Vs. Bai Jadi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom318
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Extra Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad, and it raises a question, on which there has been some difference amongst the High Courts, as to whether, when a defendant dies after a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit and his heirs are not brought on record within the time limited by law, the suit abates.2. The material facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit to enforce a mortgage against Haji Bibi as the mortgagor. The arguments in the suit were concluded on 10th July 1928. Haji Bibi died on 22nd July, judgment was given on the same date, and a preliminary decree was passed on 23rd July. It is, in my opinion, clear that having regard to the provisions of Order 22, Rule 6, Civil P.C., the preliminary decree is good as against Haji Bibi; it takes effect, as though it had been pronounced before her death. The note in Mulla's Civil Procedure Code on Order 22, Rule 6, that in a mortgage suit the 'judgment' referred to in this Rule is th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›