Mumbai Court August 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.
Gajanan Laxman Limaye Vs. Bhalchandra Keshav Limaye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR88
Blackwell, J.1. This is a suit brought by a trustee under a deed of settlement which admittedly is a trust created, among other things, for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. The plaintiff asks, among other things, that the deed may be construed and the trust administered by and under the directions of the Court, that accounts may be taken, that defendant No. 1 may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff, or the trust estate, the amount found due and payable by him on the taking of such accounts and that the property may be sold and that the plaintiff may be paid a claim in respect of a debt which he alleges is due to him from the trust estate.2. A large number of issues were raised. The first raises the point whether the consent of the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was necessary for the institution of the suit, and, if so, whether in the absence of such consent the suit is maintainable. With the consent of the parties I decided to tr...
Dattatraya Kashinath Chhatre Vs. Vithaldas Bhagwandas Darbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR1022
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal raising a question in execution. In the year 1936 the respondent obtained a decree against the appellants for a sum of Rs. 81,000 odd, which was made payable by instalments. On November 19, 1937, the decree-holder made an application to the Court, which is exhibit 1, asking the Court to record an adjustment, the terms of the adjustment being that in satisfaction of the decree, the decree-holder was to take certain immoveable properties. At the same time an application was made to the Court for sanction of the compromise on behalf of defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who were minors. Notices were issued, but eventually on February 24, 1038, the application to record the compromise was dismissed for want of prosecution. The present darkhast was issued on February 7, 1939, and the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur has held that it is entitled to proceed. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the appellants is that the application of Novemb...
Emperor Vs. Gulamalli BIn Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR872
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Rule 90B(7) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939.2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are that the accused landed in Bombay in February, 1941, from Aden, where he had sold a quantity of dates for a sum of Rs. 8,956, for which he had a draft on a Bombay bank, which in due course he cashed. On March 3 he was proposing to leave Bombay by a ship bound for the Persian Gulf, but which was to stay for a day in Karachi, and he had on him Rs. 8,900 in Government currency notes, being part of the money which he had received in respect of the bank draft. The accused's case is that he is an inhabitant of Kuwait, which is either in Persia or in Arabia, the evidence does not show which, and he says that the only language he understands is Persian. When he was going on board the ship, he was searched by the Preventive Officer, and th...
Emperor Vs. Bhikhabhai Motiram Adenwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR877
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two revision applications in which the same point arises. The accused were convicted under Section 123(7) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, for having constructed a building without permission.2. The facts are that on March 2, 1940, the accused gave a notice under Section 123(1) of the Act as to the work they were proposing to do, and under Sub-section (2) the Chief Officer required them to make certain alterations in their plans, which were duly made, and, according to the accused, they received no further communication from the Chief Officer, Accordingly on August 1 they gave notice that, having received no further communication from the Chief Officer for a period of four months, they were proposing to start work, and they did start work on August 10. On August 14, the Municipality wrote saying that on April 4 they had required the accused to set their work back twenty feet from the privy, which they would be required to do under by-law ...
Emperor Vs. Laxman Krishna Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR869
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of accused No. 1 who was charged with offences under Sub-section 38(1) and 47(a) and (c) of the Bombay Salt Act, 1890. The appeal does not relate to the acquittal under Section 47(c), but only relates to the acquittal under Sub-section 38(1) and 47(a).2. The facts are not in dispute. Accused No. 2 hired a cart belonging to accused No. 1 to convey contraband salt from Ankola, which is a customs-station within Section 36(b) of the Bombay Salt Act of 1890, and the cart was attached by the police within ten miles of Ankola, and the two accused were prosecuted. Accused No. 2 was convicted, but we are not concerned with his case; we are only concerned with the acquittal of accused No. 1.3. Section 38(1) of the Act provides that no person shall, within the limits described in Section 36, transport or possess salt exceeding one maund in weight, except in the cases mentioned. It is not disputed that the salt was here be...
Devsey Khetsey Vs. Hirji Khairaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR993
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit on August 2, 1939, for dissolution of partnership that subsisted between hirh and the defendant and for the usual partnership accounts. It was alleged in the plaint that the partnership had been dissolved on June 1, 1939. After the suit was filed, the defendant took out a notice of motion on October 2, 1939, for certain reliefs, and an order was made on October 10, 1939. The defendant made his affidavit of documents on November 17, 1939. On December 19, 1939, the plaintiff died.2. On March 18, 1940, the defendant adopted rather curious proceedings. He took out a chamber summons for bringing on the record of the suit in place of the original plaintiff Bai Moorbai, the widow of the original plaintiff, Damji Devsey and Dhanpati Devsey, all three as heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The defendant also sought by the summons liberty to amend the plaint and proceedings. On this summons Mr. Justice Kania made an order on August...
Shankar Bala Jagtap Vs. Gotiram Pandurang Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR1014
Broomfield, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kania who, disagreeing with both the lower Courts, dismissed a suit brought by the appellants to recover the price of land sold by them to defendant No. 1 by sale of the land.2. The appellants were the owners of a field survey No. 493 and some other lands which were in the possession of mortgagees under a mortgage of 1868. On August 29, 1916, they executed a sale deed, exhibit 26, in favour of defendant No. 1. The material terms of this document, which was registered, are as follows:--Land thus bounded, along, with the trees, shrubs etc., thereon and along with all their component parts, has been sold for the said sum of Rs. 3,000. You should therefore take into your possession all the mortgaged lands from the creditors, either by mutual consent, or through Court and out of them you should keep in your possession the land sold and described above and pay assessment and should make a vahiwat permanently and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›