Mumbai Court July 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.
Mahomedally Tyebally Vs. Safiabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR388
George Rankin, J.1. This case concerns the administration of the estate left by one Ebrahimji who died in 1904. He was a Dawoodi Borah governed by the Shia School of Mahomedan law and had carried on business in Bombay with his brother Sarafally as merchants and commission agents. A pedigree table of the family is given hereunder. They belonged to Kapadvanj in the Kaira District of the Bombay Presidency, and the brothers were co-owners of certain immovable properties there in addition to their interests in their ancestral home. Their Bombay business was a profitable one and a house in Samuel Street in Bombay had been acquired out of the profits.2. The heirs of Ebrahimji, according to the Shia system of 'sharers' and 'residuaries' were (1) his mother' Jelumboo entitled to a sixth share, (2) his widow Fatmabai entitled to an eighth share, (3) his son Kikabhai, and his two daughters by different wives (4) Safiabai and (5) Khatizabai. These children took shares in the residue left after ded...
Shridhar Balkrishna Agashe Vs. the Poona City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom16; (1940)42BOMLR878
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of practical importance, namely: What is meant by an order of a mofussil Court which dismisses the suit with costs, there being more than one defendant appearing separately Do the defendants get separate sets of costs, or is there to be only one set of octets between all the defendants ?2. The order, ' Suit dismissed with costs ', was made on October 30, 1937, by Mr. D. S. Gupte, the then Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona. On April 12, 1938, the plaintiff applied to Mr. Ranade, the successor of Mr. Gupte, to allow only one set of costs between the defendants, and the learned Judge held that only one set of costs should be allowed. In my opinion the order of the learned Judge, and the argument for the respondents on this appeal, confuse two quite distinct questions. First, what order ought the trial Judge to have made, and, secondly, what order did he in fact make?3. The first question does not arise on this appeal, tho...
Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. K.R. Gadgil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom26; (1940)42BOMLR955
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two revisional applications which call in question an order made by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahme-dabad, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The learned Magistrate's decision was upheld by the Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad.2. The short point is this, The Arvind Mills, Ltd., who are the applicants, carry on the business of the manufacture of yarn and cloth at Ahmedabad, and they employ workmen at their Mills, some of whom are paid by the piece, and some by time. The Mill authorities recently introduced a scheme for paying a bonus to) workmen. In the case of workmen paid by the piece the scheme is that any workman who turns out within a week the number of pieces set opposite the quality of the cloth in a published list will be paid a bonus of four annas for each week of six days. In the case of time workers the scheme seems to be that the workers are employed for a Hapta, which means a time period of sixteen days, at cer...
Shri Injal Devi Vs. Bhujya Avaji Ramoshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom29; (1940)42BOMLR1031
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal raises a short but very interesting question of law whether a presumption of permanent tenancy under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, can arise in the case of land belonging to a temple. The few facts which are necessary for the purpose of the appeal are these. The land in suit is dewasthan inam land belonging to the deities Shri Injal Devi and Maruti Dev of Apasinge. The suit was brought by the vahivatdar or manager of the temple for possession of the land. The defendants are the tenants of the land and contended that they had been in possession of it for a very long time. They had at the trial relied on a kaul or grant of permanent tenancy of the year 1845 under which they claimed Mirashi rights. In the alternative they had claimed that they were permanent tenants under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The trial Judge found that the kaul which was produced to prove the grant of Mirashi rights was not such as could be relied on....
Shankar Vishnu Burhanpurkar Vs. Maneklal Haridas Gujrathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom362; (1940)42BOMLR873
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order made by the District Judge of West Khandesh. It raises a question which; is likely to become of growing practical importance, because of the habit, which seems to be extending, of introducing Conciliation Boards to settle debts of agriculturists. The question is how far a civil Court in Bombay can entertain a suit to recover a debt which has been duly declared to be discharged by the Debt Conciliation Board of the Central Provinces. The debt was incurred under a promissory note made on April 9, 1933, by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The note was made at Nandurbar, which is within this Province, and it is admitted that there is nothing in, the terms of the promissory note which determines the law of the contract; therefore, under the ordinary rule, the law of the contract is the law of the place where the contract was made.2. The Central Provinces Debt Conciliation Act was passed in the year 1933 and ...
The Surat Borough Municipality Vs. Sarifa Karunnissa Begam Saheb and S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom53; (1940)42BOMLR960
Broomfield, J.1. The question of law in this second appeal is whether a Municipality can recover arrears of unpaid taxes by distress warrants when its remedy to recover them by suit is barred. The plaintiff-respondent, who is a house-holder and tax-payer residing in the Surat Municipality, was liable to pay certain taxes and in due course received bills and notices of demand under Section 104 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. The taxes were not paid, and though the Municipality might have taken action under Section 105 by issuing distress warrants, it did not do so but carried forward the arrears of taxes from year to year. Ultimately action was taken under Section 105, distress warrants were issued, and the plaintiff paid the taxes under protest. Subsequently she filed a suit for refund of the taxes levied by distress alleging that the Municipality had no right to recover them in that way because at the time the distress was levied, a suit to recover these arrears of taxes would h...
The Gokak Municipality Vs. Rajaram Shridhar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom386; (1940)42BOMLR886
Broomfield, J.1. We are concerned in this second appeal with questions of some importance in connection with the conditions of service of Municipal employees and the right of the Municipality to discharge its employees.2. The plaintiff who is now the respondent was a school teacher in the service of the Gokak Municipality. He was appointed in 1920, apparently for one year in the first instance though the evidence as to this is not very clear. He was, however, allowed to continue in service until the year 1933. On April 29, 1933, there was a resolution of the School Committee to the effect that the plaintiff should be served with a notice to show cause why his services should not be dispensed with. The reason for the resolution purported to be that he had not passed his B. T. (Bachelor of Teaching) and was not able to teach Kanarese. On April 30, the next day, there was a special general meeting of the Municipality at which it was resolved to give the plaintiff one month's notice and re...
Gangabai Pandurang Dombe Vs. Pagubai Narayan Kore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom395; (1940)42BOMLR883
Divatia, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the principle of lis pendens as embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to a sale made, during the pendency of a suit for maintenance, by a Hindu widow in which the property alienated is sought to be made a charge for maintenance. The question arises on the following facts. One Narayan died in 1920 leaving behind him two sons Tatya and Malkarjun and his widow Pagubai who was their step-mother. The two sons mortgaged the suit property to the present plaintiff for Rs. 11,800 on June 1, 1922. Thereafter Pagubai applied for permission to file a suit for maintenance in forma pauperis and she sought to make the suit property a charge for her maintenance. The permission to sue as a pauper was granted on January 26, 1924. Meanwhile, Tatya having died, the surviving son Mjalkarjun sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 on June 10, 1924. Thereafter Pagubai obtained a decree on January 30, 1925, and the suit pro...
Shankarrao Dagadujirao Jahagirdar Vs. Shambhu Nathu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR1
George Rankin, J.1. In this case six appeals have been consolidated. They are brought from a decision of the High Court of Bombay dated October 4, 1934, in suits by the appellant for ejectment of the respondents from the lands of their tenancies under him. In each case the basis of the claim was that the tenancy is an annual tenancy determinable at the end of the agricultural year, namely March 31, upon three months' notice. The lands in question are arable land in the inam village of Khed Digar. This village is in the Shahada taluka of the West Khandesh District in the Presidency of Bombay, and lies upon the extreme northern boundary of the Deccan where it abuts upon the Barwani State. The total area of the village would appear to be under 1,400 acres and the population about 400 persons of whom a little more than a quarter are Bhils.2. The appellant is the inamdar of the village and traces his title back to an inam grant by the Maratha ruler in 1798. This title was confirmed by the B...
Emperor Vs. Saver Manuel Dantes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom307; (1940)42BOMLR791
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which entitles him to refer any question of law arising in the hearing of a case before him. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows.2. On July 17, 1939, the Government of Bombay issued a Notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 14B of the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, prohibiting the possession by any person in the area specified, which was in substance the Town and Island of Bombay, without a permit or a license issued by an Abkari Officer, of any intoxicant specified in the schedule thereto in excess of the amount therein mentioned. On April 11, 1940, a full bench of this Court held that the said Notification was ' ultra vires and of no effect,' the basis of the decision being that under Section 14B of the Bombay Abkari Act Government could not prohibit the possession of intoxicants by the public generally. On the same day, but ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›