Mumbai Court September 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.
Ramchetsing Arjunsing Vs. Deoji Kalyanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR967
Broomfield, J.1. In this criminal revision application we are concerned with the question of the legality of an order purporting to have been made under Section 516 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in the following circumstances. On April 7, 1941, the opponent complained to the Second Class Magistrate, Andheri, that the applicant before us had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain buffaloes. The complainant's story appears to be that in December, 1940, having occasion to leave Bombay, he handed over a herd of forty buffaloes to the accused, who was his servant. He returned to Bombay in March, 1941, and when he called upon the accused to restore the animals the accused refused to do so, alleging that they belonged to him. We understand that the accused's case is that he and the complainant were doing milk business in partnership. The complainant also alleges that the accused has wrongfully disposed of some of the buffaloes. In the verification of the complaint ...
Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani Vs. Hugh Golding Cocke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR961
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, refusing the applicant leave to inspect the record in certain criminal proceedings in that Court.2. It appears that the applicant lodged a complaint against the auditors of the Central Bank, and after the matter had proceeded for a considerable time, the applicant was absent from Court at one hearing, and the accused were discharged. The applicant now says that he wants to inspect the orders made by the Court in those proceedings, the depositions of witnesses, and the exhibits in the case in order to make up his mind whether he should lodge a fresh complaint; and the question is whether he has a right to such inspection.3. The application raises the general question of the right of inspection of the record of a criminal Court subordinate to this Court. Reference has been made to Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, but that section does not really assist u...
Lalchand Hirachand Gujar Vs. Tuljaram Raoji Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR964
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District and Sessions Judge of Satara holding that the appeal to him was incompetent. So the question raised is as to jurisdiction. The applicant was a creditor in the insolvency of the opponents, and he desired to prosecute the opponents under Section 69 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for fraudulent suppression of assets. He applied to the Court for leave to prosecute under Section 70 and the Insolvency Court refused leave. Against that refusal an appeal was brought in the District Court, and the question is whether an appeal lies under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Sub-section (1) of that section provides thatThe debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a District Court may appeal to the District Court, and the order of the District Court upon such appeal sh...
Narayan Divakarappa Hubli Vs. Parameshvarappa Bhimappa Yarcad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR20
Macklin, J.1. The question with which we are concerned in this second appeal is one of subrogation. The property concerned in the suit is a house which originally belonged to defendant No. 1. He mortgaged it three times in all. The first mortgage was for Rs. 300 in May, 1931, in favour of one Shantappa. The second was for Rs. 400 in favour of one Kalappa in September, 1931. The third was to the plaintiff in October, 1933, for Rs. 650. The plaintiff's mortgage mentioned the other two mortgages and provided that out of the consideration money Rs. 308 should be spent by the plaintiff in paying off the first mortgage. In January, 1936, defendant No. 2 took out execution of a money decree which he had obtained against defendant No. 1 and bought the property in suit for Rs. 800 subject to the second mortgage. He paid off the second mortgage, and Rs. 670-3-0 (i.e. Rs. 800 less defendant No. 2's expenses) was paid into Court. The plaintiff has now sued defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to enforce his ow...
Emperor Vs. Dhula Jetha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR958
John Beaumont, C.J.1. The accused in this case was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Additional Court, Mazagaon, under Section 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1890. He was driving a victoria, which had in it six full grown men and six beddings and six bags, and the suggestion is that he was thereby overloading his gharry and causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the horse.2. Section 3 provides that if any person treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering, he shall be guilty of an offence. Section 3-A expressly makes overloading an animal an offence, but as no rules have been published, specifying the maximum weight that may be carried, there might be a difficulty in prosecuting under Section 3-A. Therefore, the case is brought under Section 3(a), and under that section it is to be shown that unnecessary pain or suffering was caused to the animal.3. The principal point taken in this revision application is that the accused...
The Central Bank of India, Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Anandrao Dabholkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR995
Kania, J.1. The applicant, as the Committee of a lunatic, filed suit No. 1896 of 1933 and on July 11, 1934, obtained a decree for Rs. 18,000 against the defendant-mortgagors in his suit. That decree was payable by instalments. In 1940 an application was made for execution, i.e. to sell the defendants' right, title and interest, inter alia, in the property at Chowpatty. A notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, was then issued and made absolute. On July 25, 1940, an application under Order XXI, Rule 54, was made and on August 2, 1940, the attachment was levied. On March 24, 1941, a warrant of sale was issued under Order XXI, Rule 64, and on July 18, 1941, claims were invited. Notice of that was published on July 30, 1941. It appears that this suit was filed by the bank as mortgagees against the defendants to realise their mortgage claim. On February 19, 1936, a preliminary mortgage decree was passed and Mr. Captain was appointed receiver. On September 29, 1938, the decree absolute was passed a...
Trimbak Yeshvant Nene Vs. Abdulla Abdul Rahiman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR105
Chagla, J.1. In view of my decision in the suit, the plaintiffs must pay the costs of the suit of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Mr. Tendulkar on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that I should only allow one set of costs as between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, and he contends that their defences are common and that, therefore, there was no reason why they should have severed their defences and instructed separate solicitors and appeared by separate counsel. Mr. Tendulkar points out that the question in the suit related to the title of the properties which defendant No. 3 had mortgaged to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in his turn had transferred to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 was defending his title to the properties. That was the only issue in the suit, and the defences of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were common. Mr. Tendulkar relies on the proposition of law as enunciated by Sir Dinshah Mulla in his commentary on Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code ...
Ganapa Rama Hegde Vs. Timmaya Narayan Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR111
Broomfield, J.1. The facts are stated in the judgments of the lower Courts. The question for decision in this second appeal reduced to its essentials may be stated in this way. A mortgages property to B and afterwards sells to C who takes possession. B then sues on his mortgage not making C a party, brings the property to sale and purchases it himself. Failing to get possession from C, he sues to evict him subject to C's right to redeem, him. At the time of B's suit against C a suit to recover the mortgage debt by sale of the property would be time-barred. Is B entitled to recover the property from C unless C is willing to redeem?2. The case is covered by the authority of Dattatraya v. Venkatesh : (1922)24BOMLR741 , where it was held on facts essentially similar that the auction purchaser in the mortgagee's suit has no such right. Both the lower Courts have followed this case, as they were bound to do, and the argument before us has mainly consisted of a challenge to the authority of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›