Mumbai Court March 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. Alladatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR702
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision by one Alla Datta Mahamad Siddik against whom the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, has made an order under Section 27(1)(a) of the City of Bombay Police Act (Bom. IV of 1902) as amended by Bombay Act XIV of 1938 directing him to remove himself from the City of Bombay.2. The Advocate General, who appears for the Crown, has taken a preliminary objection that the revision application does not lie. So far as we are aware the only precedent for an application to the High Court seeking to revise an order by the Commissioner of Police is Emperor v. Gulabdin Pathan (1935) Criminal Application for Revision No. 504 of 1934, decided by Beaumont C.J. and N.J. Wadia J.,. on February 8, 1935 (Unrep.) which was disposed of by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice N.J. Wadia in February, 1935. This Court was of opinion that the Police Commissioner's order, which of course was made under the Act as it stood before the amendment, was not justified by the p...
Govind Keshav Dandavate Vs. Yeshwant Pandharinath Shete
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR800
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit, which has given rise to this second appeal, was the sarpanch of the village panchayat of Rahuri in the Ahmednagar district. Under the Village Panchayats Act of 1920 the panchayat has the right of levying certain taxes, and in particular, under the rules made by the District Local Board in accordance with Section 27 of the Act, it is entitled to recover ground rent in respect of sites occupied in the village market. By an agreement made on April 22, 1933, between the plaintiff representing the village panchayat on the one hand and appellant No. 1 on the other the right to collect these dues was leased to appellant No. 1 for a period of one year. The consideration for the agreement was the sum of Rs. 2,300 which was to be paid in quarterly instalments. There were two sureties who undertook to pay in case of default by appellant No. 1. Default was made in the payment of the third instalment which was only paid in part. The fourth instalment was ...
The Post Master General and Gangaram Vs. Chenmal Mayachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR758
Divatia, J.1. These two revisional applications have been preferred against one judgment of the Small Causes Court Judge at Poona.2. The facts leading to the applications are shortly these:--On July 25, 1935, the father of opponents Nos. 1 to 4 obtained a decree for Rs. 236 against one Gangaram, employed as a postman in Poona. In 1938 the decree-holder filed a darkhast and prayed for the judgment-debtor's arrest. After he was arrested there was a compromise between him and the decree-holder on January 7, 1939, whereby it was agreed that the judgment-debtor's officer should withhold every month Rs. 6 out of his salary of Rs. 41 per month until the decretal amount was satisfied. The judgment-creditor made an endorsement on the agreement to the effect that an order may be passed to with-hold Rs. 6 per month from his salary, and on the same day the learned Judge ordered the agreement to be recorded. The amount was not received by the judgment-creditor and he therefore filed darkhast No. 12...
The Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad Vs. the Aryodaya Ginning and Manufa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR816
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This application arises out of an order made by the Special First Class Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (Bom. XVIII of 1925), by which the Municipality of Ahmedabad is governed. There was a revision application filed in the Court of the Extra Additional Sessions Judge against the Magistrate's order under Section 111 of the Act by the Ahmedabad Municipality. This application was rejected and the Municipality has applied in revision to this Court.2. The order passed by the Magistrate was an interlocutory one and dealt with the question of the right of the opponent to lead oral and documentary evidence before the Magistrate in the appeal pending before him. The contention of the Municipality was that a Magistrate hearing an appeal under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act could not allow additional evidence, oral or documentary, to be led before him, but must decide the matter on the evidence already led by the pa...
Chhotubhai Bhimbhai Vs. Bai Kashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR733
Broomfield, J.1. This purports to be a reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1 but in our opinion no reference lies.2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows. A suit was filed in 1915 to obtain a share in a certain cash allowance payable at the Sub-Treasury of Jalalpur in the Surat District. The plaintiff got a decree for a sum of Rs. 9-14-0 against two defendants which amount he was held entitled to recover annually 'from generation to generation. Up to the year 1931 it appears that plaintiff recovered what was due, but from 1931 to, 1938 nothing was recovered because, as we were informed, the judgment-debtors died and the names of their legal representatives were not brought on the alienation register. In 1938 the plaintiff brought a darkhast to recover the arrears and made an application under, Order XXI, Rule 52, laying claim to Rs. 69 and odd out of a sum of Rs. 182 lying in the Sub-Treasury in the names of the judgment-debtors. Order XXI, Rule 52, provides that where property to...
Merla Ramanna Vs. Chelikani Jagannadha Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR850
George Rankin, J.1. Dharma Rao and Kasibabu were brothers, the former being older than the latter by about nineteen years. The appellant Merla Ramanna was a creditor of Dharma Rao in respect of a promissory note executed in 1928 for Rs. 10,000 with certain interest. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (herein called the respondents) are the sons of Kasibabu who died in 1910. The family is governed by the Mitakshara. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 do not appear and need not be mentioned.2. After Dharma Rao's death in 1929, the appellant sued the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Cocanada as being persons in possession of Dharma Rao's estate, and on January 27, 1931, recovered judgment in the usual form limited to assets of Dharma Rao which had come to their hands. Certain immoveables in which Dharma Rao had an interest were attached before judgment, and on April 22, 1932, the respondents applied to the Subordinate Judge to raise the attachment contending that the properties attached w...
Emperor Vs. Mavji Nanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR629
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the accused under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Presidency Magistrate, II Court, and the question, which arises, is one which comes not infrequently before Magistrates in Bombay. The question is when ought a presumption to be drawn that property shown to have been stolen, and found in the possession of the accused, was received by him knowing or having reason to believe that the property was stolen? In other words, when ought the presumption arising under the first illustration to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to be drawn?2. The property found with the accused was a bell, and the learned Magistrate has found, and in revision we accept his finding, that the bell was stolen from the Motlabai Hospital on the night of October 12. According to the evidence of the witness Khimji Khoda, he himself stole the bell, and kept it on an otla of a house near his room, and somebody removed i...
Chandrakant Devji Vs. Narottamdas Amarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR644
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a motion in appeal No. 35 of 1940 asking, in the first instance, that the appeal may be dismissed under Order XXII, Rule8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and, in the alternative, that the appellant may be ordered to give further security for the coats of the appeal. The appeal is against a money decree passed against the appellant. After the passing of the decree, the decree-holders got the debtor adjudicated insolvent. There is, we are told, an appeal against the order of adjudication, but at the moment the order of adjudication stands.2. The contention of the respondents on this motion is that the right to appeal against the money decree is vested in the Official Assignee, and that the appeal has abated under Order XXII, Rule8, and ought to be dismissed under Sub-rule (2). Mr. Engineer for the respondents has relied on a decision of this Court in Rustomji v. Byramji (1933) 36 Bom. L.R. 79, but in my opinion, that decision is not in point. The Court the...
Vijayadas Hanumantdas Gudihal Vs. Shekharappa Anantappa Savanur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR727
Divatia, J.1. This appeal raises a somewhat novel point with regard to the right of a decree-holder to attach the judgment-debtor's property before the decree becomes executable.2. The facts are shortly these:--On July 11, 1932, the present appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, obtained, a money decree against one Basangowda for Rs. 370. Under the decree the amount was payable within six months. It is common ground between the parties that by virtue of that direction the decree-holder was not entitled to file an application for execution before the termination of that period. On August 9, 1932, before the period of six months expired, the present defendant filed a darkhast against his judgment-debtor in which he only asked for the relief of attachment of the judgment-debtor's immoveable property. That prayer seems to have been made on the ground that the judgment-debtor was going to alienate his property to defeat the decree-holder's claim. On August 31 the Court passed an orde...
Vaikunth P. Munim Vs. Prahladshankar K. Shukla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR827
Kania, J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 2,000, alleging that he was employed as a salesman by the Continental Garage to sell their Diesel Tracks. The defendants were stated to be the owners of the said garage. The suit was filed on January 21, 1939. On behalf of defendant No. 2 a written statement and counter-claim was filed on February 15, 1939, in which the claim was disputed and it was contended that the plaintiff had wrongfully appropriated to himself the sale proceeds of a 10 H.P. new Adler Car. The counter-claim was to recover the sale proceeds of that car.2. The parties thereafter made their affidavits of documents. That was the position when the war broke out in September, 1939. Defendant No. 2 being an alien enemy has been put in an internment camp since then. The plaintiff thereafter settled the suit with defendant No. 1 and the suit has now to proceed against defendant No. 2 only.3. In January this year the suit came on the bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »