Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR529
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by one J.D. Boy-walla, who asks us to quash a complaint lodged against him under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is a good illustration of the way in which the time of the criminal Courts and of the police in Bombay is wasted by the foolish behaviour of some of its citizens.2. The facts are that Mr. Boywalla had got a motor car, as I understand, for the first time in his life, and he took the motor car to a garage, which belonged to the opponent, either alone or with partners, in order to have it painted and repaired. His case is that when he went to get his car back from the garage, the opponent told him that the battery had not been properly charged, although Mr. Boywalla says that he had recently had it charged. However, the opponent said that the battery required to be recharged, and that it had been recharged by him, for which a sum of Rs. 3 was payable, and Mr. Boywalla paid the three rupees. But th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR631
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a suit for damages for defamation consisting partly of libel and partly of slander, and for an injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents and each and every of them from further printing, circulating, distributing or otherwise publishing the said libels and/or slanders or any similar libels and/or slanders affecting the plaintiff.2. The words complained of as libel are set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint, and were printed and published by the defendant in the issue of the Kom Sevak of September 22, 1940, a weekly journal in Gujarati published every Sunday, which was started by him sometime about the end of 1935. Defendant stated that he and his sons were the owners of the paper in partnership, and: that he himself was the editor, printer and publisher. The paper is mostly read by members of the Parsi community, but has a circulation also amongst members of the other communities. The words complained of as slander are also mentioned in para. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR646
Divatia, J.1. This revision application is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that certain property was not liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained by the defendant, who is the opponent here, against one Bapuji.2. After issues were framed the plaintiffs applied to the Court for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty on the ground that the property was in possession of the receivers in another suit filed by the other creditors of Bapuji, that in their absence this suit might fail for want of necessary parties and that a fresh suit was, therefore, necessary impleading all proper parties. The application was presented on February 15, 1940, and on the same day the learned Judge passed an order to the effect that he was satisfied that in the ends of justice, the plaintiffs may be allowed permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter on condition that the plaintiffs pay in cash full costs of the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR615
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Bijapur in an application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890.2. The material facts are that the minor girl, in respect of whom this application was made, was born on October 28, 1937, and the mother died on November 3. The mother had gone for delivery to the house of her elder sister, who is the applicant in these proceedings, and after the birth of the child the sister kept and looked after it. In February, 1938, the father of the child filed a regular, suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bagalkot, which is in the Bijapur District, asking for the custody of the child, and in July, 1938, the present application was launched under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, in the Court of the District Judge of Bijapur, by the aunt who had the actual custody of the child. She asks to be appointed guardian of the child, and to be confirmed in the custody. When the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR611
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the award of the learned Commissioner awarding a sum of Rs. 448 as compensation to the workman.2. The facts as found by the learned Commissioner are that on July 5, 1939, the workman was working on a lathe in the workshop of the appellant, and got a particle of something into his eye. He admittedly did not give notice at once of the accident, but the next day did not attend work, and he says that he told his fellow employee, Ambalal, to tell the Mistry the reason for his not attending. Ambalal denies that story, and the learned Commissioner has not found as a fact whether Ambalal was told or not. The learned Commissioner has not found the facts very clearly. According to the evidence, however, the workman went to his doctor the day after the accident, and the doctor gave him some treatment. A day after that the workman complained that he could not see, and, at any rate, three days after the accide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR618
Divatia J.1. The parties to this dispute are a Hindu widow and her husband's brother. The appeal arises in a suit filed by the plaintiff, who is the husband's brother, against the widow for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to get Rs. 65 per annum for her maintenance as settled in a consent decree in a previous suit in 1928, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree. In the alternative he prayed for a reduction of the said amount of maintenance in view of the changed circumstances of the parties. 2. The facts which led to the litigation are shortly these:--In 1928 the widow filed a suit against the present plaintiff for getting her maintenance from the joint family property. That suit ended in a compromise under which the plaintiff was to give Rs. 65 per year as maintenance to her. That amount had been paid by him since then, but in 1935 the plaintiff brought the present suit on the ground that the income of the ancestral property...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR515
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two revision applications, one by the husband and the other by the wife in proceedings under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The parties are Mahomedans, and the husband and wife do not get on, and are at the moment living apart, and three children of the marriage,--a boy of fifteen and two girls of ten and seven--, are in fact living with the wife. The wife applied for maintenance, and the learned Magistrate held as a fact that the respondent had not refused or neglected to maintain her, and, therefore, he refused to make any order as to maintenance in favour of the wife, and in revision we do not see any ground for differing from the learned Magistrate on that question.2. The learned Magistrate, however, made an order on the respondent (or payment of maintenance to the three children, and the father applies to us to set aside that order. The learned Magistrate has made a report to the Court under Section 441 of the Criminal Procedure Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR603
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by one Bechardas Damodardas against whom a decree for Rs. 20,000 and odd has been passed by the Joint First Class Sub-Judge, Ahmedabad, at the suit of the Ahmedabad Municipality.2. There is no dispute as to the facts which are fully set out in the plaint. The Ahmedabad Municipality has a vegetable market, the right to occupy which is periodically sold by auction. There was an auction held on January 21, 1934, at which one Bechardas Samaldas was the highest bidder. The terms of the tenancy were set out in the conditions of the auction, exhibit 61, a document which after his bid was made was signed by Bechardas Samaldas and also by the Chairman of the Standing Committee which carried out the auction. The period of tenancy was to be three years from April 1, 1934, to March 31, 1937. The person who obtained the lease was to pass a registered rent-note at his own expense. He was to deposit one month's rent and he was to pay the rent every month in advance....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR496
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two applications to the Court to grant a certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, certifying that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Act. When the matter first came before this Court, we directed notice to issue to the accused, because it appeared to us that the question involved was not free from difficulty.2. The question arises in this way. In April, 1940, a full bench of this Court (1932) L.R.60 IndAp 76 held that a Notification issued by the Government of Bombay on July 17, 1939, under the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, was invalid. Subsequently, the Government of Bombay passed an Act amending the Bombay Abkari Act, the effect of which was intended to be to revive the Notification of July 17, 1939. After the passing of the Amendment Act, the accused in the present case, that is to say, the respondent on these applications, was prosecuted for infringing the notification in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR539
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Belgaum. The material facts are that defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff are father and son, members of a joint family, and part of the coparcenary property consists of some Joshi service inam land, in the year 1922 defendant No. 2, as manager of the family, mortgaged this Joshi service inam land to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 300. In 1928 defendant No. 1 obtained a mortgage decree against defendant No. 2, and in 1933 defendant No. 1 issued a darkhast and obtained an order for sale of this property. In March, 1935, the plaintiff filed the present suit asking for a declaration that the Joshi service inam land is inalienable and not liable to be sold in execution of the decree of defendant No. 1, and he asked for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from selling any portion of the land in execution of the decree. The learned trial Judge held that the land was inalienable but that defendant No. 2 was est...
Tag this Judgment!