Mumbai Court June 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.
Shekh Zafarbhai Guljarbhai Vs. Chhaganlal Aditram Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR854
Divatia, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit by the plaintiff-appellant to recover possession of a piece of land and damages for occupation at certain rate. The plaintiff is the present mutawalli of the suit property and his case was that the suit land which was wakf property was given on a lease for fifty-one years by his predecessor, defendant No. 2, to defendant No. 1 on. November 12, 1925, but that he had no power under the Mahomedan law to grant a lease for a long period. The lease being therefore void, he sued to> recover the property from defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1's case was that the lease was validly passed by defendant No. 2 acting as mutawalli, that the transaction was for necessity as well as for the benefit to the wakf, that a mosque was erected with the money obtained by defendant No. 2 front him, and if permission of the Court was necessary to validate the transaction, such permission should be granted in this suit.2. The main question, therefore, was whether th...
S.N. Banerji and the Kalyanpur Lime Works Limited Vs. the Kuchwar Lime ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR324
Atkin, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from orders made by the High Court at Patna refusing to the appellants restoration of possession of limestone quarries in the district of Shahabad. There are two appeals because application was originally made by the first two appellants, Managing Director and Manager, respectively, of the appellant company. A separate application was afterwards made by the company, the appellants in the second appeal. No separate point arises in respect of them. The disputes between the parties have already twice been carried to this Board and the judgments given have made it unnecessary to go into detail in deciding this appeal. In 1928 the Secretary of State granted to the Kuchwar Lime & Stone Company, Ltd., the present respondents, quarrying leases for the term of twenty years of the quarries in question. There were covenants in each lease that the lessees would not assign the lease or transfer any right or interest there under or underlet the whole or...
Mary Do Rozario Vs. Ernest Do Rozario
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR830
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a wife's petition for judicial separation and a consequential order for alimony.2. The position is this. The parties, who are Christians, were married in 1932. They were married at Vienna, and soon after the marriage the husband came to India, and later in the year the wife followed him. The petition alleges that his sisters objected to his having married a European lady, and were not friendly towards her. In November, 1933, she went back to Vienna, and in April, 1934, returned to India. But the parties did not live together. They have not lived together since November 27, 1933, when the wife left India for Vienna. After her return in April, 1934, negotiations took place between the husband and the wife with regard to a separation, and the correspondence, which is annexed to the respondent's answer, shows that from August 6, 1934, until September 25, 1934, the husband and wife through their respective solicitors were negotiating with a view to the par...
The Bhowanipur Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Shreemati Durgesh Nandi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR1
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature in Bengal which reversed a decree of the subordinate Judge in favour of the present appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was to recover a sum due upon a mortgage bond executed by the respondent and for the usual relief in a mortgage suit in default of payment. The bond, reciting that the husband of the mortgagor was indebted to the bank in the sum of Rs. 1,78,965 and that the mortgagor desired to reduce his debt by borrowing money by mortgage of her own property, provided that the mortgagor borrowed from the bank Rs. 30,000 and mortgaged to them the immoveable property there stated. The plaint alleged that no part of the principal or interest had been paid. The defendant by her written statement set up a number of defences such as that she was a purdanashin lady and was not fully advised of the nature of the bond, that she was coerced into executing it, that it was not duly executed or attested and ...
P.T. Krishnaswami Ayyangar Vs. Chevulu Kamalamma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR191
Romer, J.1. Chevula Venkatasubbaya Chetti now deceased was the owner of two houses in Madras. For the sake of brevity they may be referred to as Nos. 60 and 68 respectively, and their owner as the testator.2. On June 2, 1919, the testator executed a promissory note for Rs. 12,000 bearing interest at nine per cent, per annum in favour of one Rangayya Chetti and deposited with him the title deeds of No. 60 as security. At the same time the testator executed a document headed ' Collateral Security Bond ' which recorded the fact of the deposit of the title deeds as collateral security in respect of the promissory note and then proceeded as follows :I shall therefore pay you the principal and interest accruing due on the said promissory note from this date in full, and redeem the said title deeds. To this effect is the collateral security bond executed by me with consent. 3. This document was never registered.4. The testator died in the year 1920 having by his will appointed four executors ...
Emperor Vs. Joseph Abdullahi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR839
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are three revision applications in which the accused were convicted under Rule 6(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the charge against them being that they were found within a prohibited area. They are all Jewish merchants and they all pleaded guilty. In each case the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate merely recorded a plea of guilty, and did not record the plea in the language used by the accused as he should have done, and in each case he inflicted a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment. A fourth case came before this Court in the course of the present week, which has not yet been decided, in which the same sentence was imposed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, although in that case the circumstances were quite different.2. These offences under the Defence of India Rules may obviously differ very much in their gravity, and they cannot be dealt with by any rule-of-thumb sentence. If there is any reason for supposing that a m...
Emperor Vs. Chhotalal Bapalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR834
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court. The accused was charged under Section 128 of the City of Bombay Police Act with having disobeyed an externment order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police under Section 27(2A) of the Act. The accused admitted the making of the order, its service upon him, and his return to Bombay within the time prohibited by the order. But the learned Magistrate, quite rightly, refused to accept a plea of guilty, without considering the question whether the externment order passed by the Commissioner of Police was a valid order. He held that it was not a valid order and accordingly acquitted the accused.2. Sub-section (2A) of Section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act was added by amendment in the year 1936, and is in these terms:(2A). It shall be further competent to the Commissioner of Police to direct any person who, not having been born in ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›