Mumbai Court October 1941 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. Balvant Jivan Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR48
Broomfield, J.1. These are references by the District Magistrate of Nasik in the matter of one Balwant Jivan Pawar, a youth who has been convicted of two offences of indecent assault, one on a married woman of fifty and the other on a girl of eleven. The trial Magistrate ordered him, to be detained in the Borstal School for a period of three years, and the authorities responsible for the Borstal School object to this order on the ground that youths of this type exercise a bad influence in the School. The District Magistrate has accordingly submitted the cases to this Court and recommends that the accused should be dealt with in some other way. The learned District Magistrate has suggested whipping, but as the accused is eighteen years old, the Whipping Act does not apply in the case of an offence under Section 354.2. Moreover, as the learned Assistant Government Pleader points out, Section 21 of the Borstal Schools Act appears to deprive us of any jurisdiction to interfere at all. The ...
Government Vs. the Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR57
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr., Justice B. J. Wadia awarding compensation on a reference under the Land Acquisition Act referred to him under Section 18 of the Act.2. The land to be acquired has an area of 16, 585 square yards, and it has a frontage of 473 feet to a sixty feet road, and a frontage of 518 feet to a forty feet road. It was conveyed to the claimants by two conveyances, one made in 1924 and the other in 1928, by the Bombay Improvement Trust, who have now been succeeded by the Bombay Municipality. The land was conveyed as freehold, but subject under both conveyances to certain restrictive covenants. In the first conveyance the user was confined to residential purposes, offices and such class of shops only as were not prohibited by the grantors; and under the later conveyance, which included the larger part of the land, the user was restricted to shops, chawls, offices, residences, go-downs and a Wireless Broadcasting Station. Under neith...
Vishram Yesu Haldankar Vs. Dadabhoy Hormasji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR285
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the father of a deceased workman; against a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay, dismissing his claim.2. This is one of those cases in which the circumstances in which the accident occurred are not known. The applicant's son was one of six khalasis employed on a barge which was tied up alongside a steamer in the dock. The finding is that the khalasis had to prepare and take their meals on the barge and also to sleep there either in the rooms allotted to them by the employer when there was no work at night, or on the hatches when there was work at night. On the day in question, which was the night of October 22/23, 1940, meals were taken at half-past eight and the khalasis slept on the hatches. The work of loading goods into the ship was to begin at 3 a.m. on the 23rd. The deceased went to sleep on one of the hatches at about 9 p.m. and when his companions woke up, he was found to be missing, and a considerable time ...
Krishnaji Hanmant Diwan Vs. Raghavendra Keshav Mutalik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR371
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Raghavendra to recover possession of certain property which originally belonged to one Hanmant Narayan Diwan on the ground that respondent was the adopted son of Hanmant, having been adopted by Hanmant's widow Laxmibai on April 19, 1935. Hanmant died on August 15, 1911, leaving behind him a widow Laxmibai and a son Narayan alias Babu. He had also a brother named Gopal and a sister Krishnabai who was married to one Venka-tesh Sholapurkar. The appellant Krishnaji, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, is the son of Hanmant's sister Krishnabai. The appellant's case was that Hanmant's son Narayan alias Babu was a congenital idiot and that on this account Laxmibai adopted the appellant on May 7, 1923, during the lifetime of her son Narayan. He contended that this adoption was a valid one, since Narayan being a congenital idiot and disqualified from inheriting, and unable to fulfil the religious obligations of a son by ...
Raja Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs. Raja ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR551
George Rankin, J.Raja Kumar Yachama|________________________________________________________| | | |Rajagopala Muttu Venkata Venugopal(covenantor (died childless) | (died 1920in 1889) Krishna Bahadur unmarried)| |Govinda _________________________(original defendant | |died 1937) Rajeswara Maheswara| (plaintiff No. 1) (plaintiff No. 2) Kumara(defendant)1. The questions in this case arise within a Sudra family of which the defendant, the Raja of Venkatagiri, is the head. He is the present holder of the impartible estate which goes by that name, having succeeded to his father in 1937 while the present suit was pending in appeal before the High Court of Madras. The estate is admittedly joint family property though impartible. The two plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of one Venugopal, younger brother of Rajagopala, the defendant's grandfather, who was a previous holder of the impartible estate. The plaintiffs' mother, though not married to Venugopal, cohabited with him in a manner exclus...
Emperor Vs. Kasamalli Mirzalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR27
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Court has to consider a certificate given by the learned Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. Under that clause, if the Advocate General certifies that there is a point of law involved in the case which requires further consideration, this Court has to determine the point of law, and, if it thinks that there has been an error in law, can review the whole case and pass the requisite judgment and sentence.2. There is no doubt in this case that there was an error of law in relation to the use which the learned Judge made of statements of witnesses made before the police. We will deal with that more in detail in a moment. But the existence of that error, which is admitted by Mr. Velinker for the Crown, requires us to review the whole case. It is not essential, whenever there has been some error of law, to set aside the conviction, but undoubtedly we must) set aside the conviction, if we think; that the error of law has prejudic...
Vithalbhai Shivabha Patel Vs. Lalbhai Bhimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR380
Kania, J.1. [After stating facts his Lordship continued.] These being the facts the first question for consideration is whether the Kathore Mahal Court was a Court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In this connection it is material to bear in mind that the jurisdiction of the Kathore Mahal Court for the purpose of passing a decree enforceable in the territory of H. H. the Gaekwar of Baroda is different from the jurisdiction contemplated by Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. That Court may have jurisdiction, if a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction to pass a decree. But when the defendant did not owe any allegiance to H. H. the Gaekwar of Baroda and was not a resident within the jurisdiction of the local Court on the date of the suit, different considerations arise in respect of the enforceability of the decree in a foreign territory. Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code provides :The Court shall pr...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Chimanlal Jamnadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR295
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for a declaration that the suit property consisting of land with buildings thereon was of the absolute ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, the Government represented by the Secretary of State for India in Council, from taking vacant possession of the land after removal of the superstructures. An alternative relief was also prayed that if it be held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the land under a lease of ninety-nine years, the Government should fix a reasonable amount for rent after the expiry of the lease but not take forcible possession of the same.2. The land in suit is situated in a prominent locality in the city of Ahmed-abad. Its present survey number is 4663 corresponding to old city survey Nos. 123 and 235 of L. Tikka No. 3 in the Raikhad ward of Ahmedabad city. Its area is 642 square yards. The plaintiffs' case in substance was that this lan...
Emperor Vs. Hasanbhai Rehmatbhai Vinawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR45
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order of acquittal passed by the Honorary Second Class Magistrate of Nadiad in a case in which the accused Vora Hasanbhai Rehmatbhai Vinawala was prosecuted for erecting without the permission of the Nadiad Municipality a fence six feet in height consisting of wooden planks attached to posts embedded in the earth on the northern and southern boundaries of an open piece of ground to the east of his house situated within the Municipal limits.2. The appeal raises the question whether the said construction is a building within the meaning of Section 3, Clause (2), of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (Bom. XVIII of 1925). It seems the accused had made an application to the Nadiad Municipality on April 19, 1940, for permission to build a compound wall with doors in it in survey Nos. 509A and 509B. Comprised in those survey Nos. is the vacant land in question to the east of the accused's house. That permission was refu...
Haidarsha Lalsha Pathan Vs. Dhondu Abaji Sandbhor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR53
Wassoodew, J.1. These are revision applications against the orders of the learned District Magistrate of Poona. Those orders were made in certain cases reported to him by the Second Class Magistrate of Mawal under the provisions of Section 346, Sub-section (I), of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, as the evidence appeared to the Magistrate to warrant a presumption that the cases were such as should be committed for trial and the Magistrate himself had no power to do so. The learned District Magistrate disagreed with that view and passed orders returning the cases to the Subordinate Magistrate for disposal.2. The material facts may be shortly stated. Two different complaints were originally filed before the First Class Magistrate of Khed by the petitioner against the same persons for offences of rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, theft and criminal trespass. Those complaints were transferred for trial upon the application of the accused to the Court of the Second Class Magistrate of Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »