Mumbai Court November 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.
Kedar Nath Goenka Vs. Bageswari Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR765
Atkin, J.1. Their Lordships do not find it necessary to hear counsel for the respondents in this case.2. These are appeals from decrees of the High Court at Patna, which reversed decisions of the Subordinate Judge on two matters which arose under these circumstances: In 1901, a certain property in Bihar was sold by the Collector for arrears of land revenue. It belonged to the respondents or their predecessors. There being an irregularity in the sale, the present appellant, whose father had been the purchaser, by a decree which was given in a suit against him for possession was compelled to surrender the property. In that suit possession was decreed and mesne profits were assessed by the Subordinate Judge. He assessed the mesne profits at a particular rate and he gave interest at twelve per cent, throughout.3. There was an appeal from that decision and the High Court increased the amount of the mesne profits, but they decreed that interest should be at twelve per cent, up to the date at...
ismail Haji Arat Vs. Umar Abdulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR256
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiffs are the present trustees under the will of one Hajee Jusab Haji Suleman who died at Bombay on March 7, 1926, having previous to his death made his last will and testament dated December 14, 1922. By his will the deceased inter alia directed his executors to divide all his moveable and immoveable properties in three equal parts and to set apart one of such one-third part and invest the same in the purchase of some immoveable property or properties in Bombay and settle by way of wakf for the following objects, viz,-A. To pay one-fifth of the net income thereof (after deducting out of the entire income all rates and taxes dues and duties, expenses for ordinary repairs, amount to be set apart by way of reserve fund, and all other necessary charges and expenses) to his nephew Hoosein Noor Mahomed and after his death divide the same among his heirs in proportion to their shares according to Mahomedan law and on the death of each of such heirs to divide the amount ...
Balkrishna Khanderao Nyayadhisha Vs. Anant Abaji Inamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR288
John Beaumont, C.J.1. These are appeals under the Letters Patent against the decision of Mr. Justice Macklin in three Second Appeals, in which there was only one judgment. The plaintiffs are the holders of certain lands and the defendants are the superior holders to whom assessment is payable. Prior to 1875 the assessment was Rs. 119-14-0. It was increased in 1875 to Rs. 185-8-0, and there have been two subsequent enhancements, the details of which it is not necessary to give. In 1889 higher assessment as enhanced from 1875, which up to that time had not been paid, was demanded and refused, and the superior holders approached the revenue authorities for assistance under Section 85 of the Land Revenue Code, but that assistance was refused. Subsequently, in 1920, enhanced assessment was recovered through revenue authorities and these suits were filed asking for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to recover the enhanced assessment and for recovery of the amount paid in enh...
Emperor Vs. Ali Mahomed Adamallt (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR231
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 10 read with Section 6A of the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923 (as amended by Bombay Act XVIII of 1935). The objection to the order made by the learned Magistrate is purely technical, and it arises in this way.2. Under Section 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, within six months from the commencement of the Act, (and as to the community to which the present accused belongs the Act came into operation on October 16, 1931), every muta-walli shall furnish to the Court, which in this case is the Small Cause Court, Bombay, certain particulars relating to the wakf ; and under Section 5 he has to deliver certain accounts. By Section 10 failure to furnish the required particulars under Section 3, or to deliver the accounts under Section 5, shall render the mutawalli liable to conviction and to be punished with a fine. That Act was amended by Bombay Act XVIII of 1935, which added a good many sections, some of...
Harischandra Khanderao Kothare Vs. A.S. Craig
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR251
Chagla, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendants for setting aside an ex parte order made by Mr. Justice Kania on July 28, 1941,. and for setting aside the service of the writ of summons effected pursuant to the said Judge's order upon the defendants as representing all other members of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of this Court, for damages for wrongful termination of his services by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society. The object of this society, as apparent from the rules which have been put in, is to provide any member of the society with legal assistance for his defence in the event of his being prosecuted for an offence or offences, under the Indian Railways Act or the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him and arising out of and in the discharge of his duties, or of actions believed to be within the scope of his du...
Emperor Vs. Dharmappa Yellappa Sambrani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR241
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Dhar-war raising a question as to the construction of Clause (f) of Section 61(2) of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890. The facts are not in dispute. The accused was charged with obstruction in that he gave a caste dinner in the street outside his residence, a thing which he had been in the habit of doing in years past without any objection being raised. But on this occasion some people desired to pass along the road and were obstructed by the diners. Both the lower Courts held, rightly, that the act of the accused amounted to obstruction, but the question is whether it amounted to an obstruction prohibited by the Bombay District Police Act. Section 61 (1)(f), provides that :Whoever ...(f) causes obstruction in any street by allowing any animal or vehicle which has to be loaded or unloaded or to take up or set down passengers, to remain or stand therein longer than may be necessary for such purpose, or by leavin...
Kashinath Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. Anant Murlidhar Inamdar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Bom284
Broomfield, J.1. The appellant in this case was the plaintiff in the Court below. He brought a suit for possession of lands and houses at Nerle in the Satara district which formerly belonged to one Bhanudas. The property is now in the possession of the defendants who claim the greater part of it on behalf of defendant 1, a minor alleged to have been adopted by Bhanudas on 4th March 1930. Bhanudas was himself a minor then aged 14 years and 7 1/2 months. He died of heart disease on 19th October 1931. The plaintiff is a cousin belonging to another branch of the family, but he would admittedly be the heir and entitled to the property but for the adoption of defendant 1. He has denied that the adoption took place in fact, and, if it did take place, he contends that it was invalid, because Bhanudas was too young to understand the nature of the adoption and was also ill, and moreover the adoption was brought about by undue influence exercised by defendant 2, his uncle and the father of the ad...
Alabux Nazaralli Bohori Vs. Abdullalli Khanbhai Bohori
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR117
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a final order made in a partition suit by the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon, and a preliminary point arises in connection with the Court-fee. The suit, as I have said, was a partition suit, and for some reason or other admittedly the plaint was insufficiently stamped. The stamp was Rs. 15 Court-fee stamp, and the amount should have been Rs. 235. At the hearing a preliminary order was made declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property, and directing that the plaintiff was entitled to recover her costs from the defendants, and there was a reference to the Commissioner to partition the property. That order was made on March 17, 1939. The Commissioner framed a scheme of partition, and a final order was made on August 28, 1939, partitioning the property in accordance with the scheme. Against that order this appeal is brought. An objection has been taken that the proper Court-fee ought to be paid on the p...
Emperor Vs. Gulam Rasul Gulam Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR225
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order of acquittal made by the First Class Magistrate, Olpad. The accused was charged with having committed a breach of Rule 93 (2) of the rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, He was the driver of a motor trolly which was licensed as a goods vehicle. On December 1, 1940, he was found carrying twenty-three persons in the lorry from Surat to Kathodra, He admitted having carried these persons as alleged. His defence was that he was carrying them not as passengers for hire but as his personal friends, that there were no goods being carried in the vehicle at the time, and that the space in the vehicle, nine and a half feet by five and a half feet, was sufficient to accommodate all these persons.2. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that as the trolly, though licensed only to carry goods, was not actually carrying any goods at the time, there was no breach of Rule 93(2). Rule 93, Sub-rule (...
Emperor Vs. S.R. Koppalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR228
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order made by an Honorary Presidency Magistrate acquitting the accused who was charged with a breach of Rule 7 framed under Clause (f)(i) and (g) of Sub-section (I) of Section 22 of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902. The accused is the keeper of a restaurant of what is known as Class B character, and under the rules, to which I will refer in a moment, he is entitled to keep the place open without any license except for the period from 9-30 p. m. to 5-30 a. m. He was found to have been absent from the restaurant between 7 p. m. and 9 p. m. and is alleged thereby to have committed a breach of Rule 7. There are three material rales which have to be considered. Rule 4 provides that no person who keeps a place of public entertainment of Class B shall keep such place open for customers between the hours of 9-30 p. m. (S. T.) and 5-30 a.m. (S. T.) without previously obtaining a license for the same from the Commi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »