Mumbai Court September 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. Shirinbai Sorabji Nagpurwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom66; (1940)42BOMLR1060
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Thana. The accused was convicted by the Magistrate of infringing by-law 3 of Chapter III of the by-laws of the Municipality of Vile-Parle, and the learned Sessions Judge takes the view that there are no by-laws of the Municipality of Vile-Parle, and that, therefore, the conviction was necessarily illegal.2. The position of the matter is this. In 1932 the Municipality were minded to make some by-laws, and they prepared some draft by-laws and sent them to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner made certain alterations in various by-laws, but did not alter Chapter III which contained the by-law said to have been broken, and sent the draft, as altered, back to the Municipality. The Municipality then invited criticism under the Act upon the by-laws as altered, and eventually did nothing further. They never adopted the by-laws as altered by the Commissioner. The contention of the complainant is that, inasmuch as Cha...
Gurappa Gurushiddappa Neeli Vs. Amarangji Vanichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom90; (1941)43BOMLR26
S.A. Desai.1. I submit that where in the course of a suit a charge is created, such charge negatives personal liability. Secondly, by expressly mentioning a particular remedy granted by a decree the other reliefs are denied: expressio unius exclush alterius. Thirdly, you cannot divorce a decree from the plaint, for Section 11, expln. V, of the Civil Procedure Code, provides: 'Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, .... be deemed to have been refused.' Fourthly, the principle of Order XXXIV of the Code applies to the present case where charge is created for the first time by the decree itself. On the last point there is a divergence of opinion among Judges of our Court. Further question is whether Order XXXIV applies to moveables in principle.2. In his second edition of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sir Dinshah Mulla says (p. 547): 'When a charge is created by act of parties the specification of the particular fund or property negati...
Rango Ramchandra Kulkarni Vs. Gurlingappa Chinnappa Muthal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom198; (1941)43BOMLR206
Broomfield, J.1.The question for determination in this second appeal is whether the holder of a money decree, who has attached immoveable property of his judgment-debtor before judgment, can bring that property to sale in satisfaction of his decree when the judgment-debtor has, before the attachment, agreed to sell the property to a third party and the sale has been completed by a conveyance after the attachment. The other facts which may be material in the particular case are that Rs. 1,500 out of the total consideration of Rs. 7,000 were paid at the time of the agreement, that possession was handed over to the purchaser at the same time, and that on the date of the sale-deed, which was executed two days after the attachment, Rs. 1,766 were paid to the vendor, the balance being retained by the purchaser in accordance with the agreement to satisfy certain mortgages on the property. The decree-holder brought a suit for a declaration that the property was liable to be attached and sold i...
Emperor Vs. Shamlal Jamnadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom19; (1940)42BOMLR1028
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the Honorary First Class Magistrate of Surat.2. The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector, that is the complainant, purchased ghee from two tins in the shop of the accused which had no labels upon them, and that the accused actually effected the sale. The accused gave to the complainant two receipts, which were exhibits 2/B and 2/A, stating that he had sold one-fourth Bengal seer of ghee, in one receipt stating ' for eating purposes ' and in the other ' of eatable ghee '. We have not got any record of the evidence, because this was a summons case. But from the finding of the learned Magistrate and the receipts, I think, we must take it that the complainant asked for ghee and was sold this stuff as eatable ghee, and on analysis it was found to be heavily adulterated. The learned Magistrate dismissed the summons on the ground that the accused himself was not responsible for what was ...
The Bank of Morvi, Limited Vs. R.P. Wagle and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom190; (1941)43BOMLR266
Kania, J.1. This is an application under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, by the assignee of the decree.2. The decree was originally passed in November, 1924, for Rs. 15,000, payable by two instalments of Rs. 10,000 on February 1, 1926, and Rs. 5,000 on February 1, 1927. Defendant No. 2 died on February 7, 1926. The decree was assigned to the first assignees on December 7, 1931, who in their turn assigned it to the second assignee on March 19, 1935. On the decree a payment of Rs. 100 made on July 2, 1936, and another of Rs. 500 made on February 27, 1939, are certified. The assignee has made his application under Order XXI, Rule 16.3. From the facts it is clear that another application under Order XXI, Rule 22, is required to be made before an order can be made for execution in respect of the application made under Order XXI, Rule 11.4. The fact of the assignment and the right of the assignee to execute the decree by virtue of his assignment are not disputed. Various objections...
The New Mofussil Co. Ltd. Vs. Shankerlal Narayandas Mundade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom247; (1941)43BOMLR293
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia allowing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a cotton factory at Dhulia. The factory was one of several belonging to defendant No. 1, a limited company with its registered office in Bombay which was in liquidation.2. The plaintiff's case is that the agreement was finally concluded in Bombay on July 7, 1936, when as the result of a conversation between one Nandurdikar, a broker acting for the plaintiff, and Sir Shapurji Billimoria, one of the liquidators, and of a further conversation between Nandurdikar and the company's solicitor Manekshaw the terms of the bargain were all settled and a draft agreement containing these terms was. drawn up which was engrossed on the following morning. Neither the draft agreement nor the engrossment was signed by either party, and after several more meetings between Nandurdikar and Manekshaw, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›