Mumbai Court January 1942 Judgments
Rama Kalinga Mahar Vs. Balapa Kalinga Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom203; (1942)44BOMLR459
Baumont, C.J.1. This is an application to the Court under Rule 132 of the Appellate Side Rules. The question relates to the amount allowed by the Taxing Officer for the advocate's fee, and the application raises an important question of principle.2. The suit is a suit for an injunction, in which the plaintiff asks that the defendants may be restrained from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The plaintiff's case was that he was the absolute owner of the suit property as his separate estate, and the defence was that the property was joint family property and vested in the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff's share being an undivided third. The plaintiff's suit failed at the trial, and his appeal to the Assistant Judge and a second appeal to this Court were dismissed. In the result, therefore, the finding is that the property is not the separate property of the plaintiff.3. It is plain that although this is in form a suit for an injunction, it is really a suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal Ishwarlal Mehta and Govindlal Nathubhai Vakil Vs. Junior Ins ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom273; (1942)44BOMLR606
Divatia, J.1. These are two companion matters involving a common question as to the liability of the appellants, under the Payment of Wages Act, to pay compensation to certain workers on account of delay in the payment of their wages. In Second Appeal No. 727 the wages, which were payable on June 7, 1938, were paid on June 17, and in the other appeal they were payable on July 7, 1938, but were paid on July 15. The Junior Inspector of Factories and Inspector under the Payment of Wages Act thereafter applied to the Additional District Magistrate of Ahmedabad, who was the authority under the Act, for direction under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act to pay compensation for delay in the payment of wages. The Magistrate, after hearing the case on the merits, directed that the opponents, who are the occupier and the manager of the factory in which the men were employed, should pay compensation, under Section 15 (3) of the Act, to each worker whose wages had been delayed.2. Appeals w...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullamiyan Abdulrehman Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom257; (1942)44BOMLR577
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a reference made to a full bench by Mr. Justice Broomfield and Mr. Justice Wassoodew by a referring judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Broomfield.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant claims to be entitled to a lease from Government granted by the Collector of Ahmedabad in 1918. In 1933 the then Collector of Ahmedabad, considering that the grant of the lease of 1918 by his predecessor was invalid, purported to terminate it. Against his order an appeal was made to the Commissioner, Northern Division. The Commissioner held that the lease of 1918 was ultra vires of the Collector, but that the Collector in 1933 had no power to review his predecessor's order. The commissioner, however, acting as a revising authority under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, purported to terminate the lease of 1918, and directed that the tenancy should be treated as an annual one. Notice of that order was in due course served upon the appellant, and he fil...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirji Navroji Tadivala Vs. Maherban Faredoon Alamshaw
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom276; (1942)44BOMLR603
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal which the appellant seeks to bring against what he alleges is an order made by the District Judge of Thana under the Indian Succession Act. The respondent is the executor of the will of a gentleman named Tadiwalla, who died in the Broach District on January 18, 1939, leaving property within the jurisdiction both of the Broach district and of the Thana district. The learned District Judge of Thana decided under Section 271 of the Indian Succession Act that he had power to entertain an application for probate of the last will of Tadiwalla, and that it would be convenient for him to do so, and there was no necessity under Section 271 to refuse the application on the ground that it would be more conveniently dealt with by the Broach District Court.2. A preliminary objection was taken, when the case first came before this Court, that no appeal lay, having regard to the provisions of Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act. That section provides that every...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavsang Haribhai Patel Vs. Dipsang Jijibhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom280; (1942)44BOMLR661
Macklin, J. 1. One Adesang Himdas died in 1892 after making a will. He left two widows; and some months after his death one of the widows gave birth to a posthumous son, who died less than two years later. Adesang also left two daughters, Bai Suraj and Bai Mongh. By his will he provided that his property should go to his daughters unless a posthumous son were born to him. He had been predeceased by a divided brother Jijibhai, who at his death left a widow Bai Sada and also a daughter Bai Chanda. The present plaintiff is Bai Chanda's grandson, and he was adopted by Bai Sada to her husband Jijibhai on December 4, 1938. In 1897 Bai Sada' relinquished all her husband's property in favour of her daughter Bai Chanda. In 1937 Bai Mongh, who was then the survivor of the two daughters of Adesang, surrendered the properties in suit to the defendant. Those properties are admittedly the ancestral properties of Adesang, and by a custom relating to bhag properties in the Broach district the preferen...
Tag this Judgment!Channappa Girimallappa Jolad Vs. Shankardas Vishnudas Darbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom282; (1942)44BOMLR656
Sen, J.1. The main question in this appeal, which arises out of execution proceedings, is whether the darkhast is barred under Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant is the original judgment-debtor, and the respondents are the decree-holders. The facts leading up to the darkhast are somewhat complicated, and the material facts may be stated as follows.2. The decree-holders, whose father was the mortgagee of a mortgage dated September 30, 1905, obtained a decree in terms of a compromise on July 30, 1918, under which it was declared that the defendants were to pay Rs. 13,000 to the plaintiff by annual installments of Rs. 1,200, that if the defendants failed to make payment in time of any installment, such installment was to bear interest, and that if the defendants failed to make payments in time of any two installments, the plaintiff should be entitled to recover the whole amount due. Some installments were paid thereafter. The mortgagor was one Muchkhandeppa who died in ...
Tag this Judgment!Channappa Girimalappa Jolad Vs. the Bagalkot Bank and Shankardas Vishn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom338; (1942)44BOMLR735
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur, and it arises in this way.2. In 1933 the plaintiff, who was a minor, filed a suit to recover possession of certain immoveable property against his adoptive mother Irawa and purchasers from her. His case was that Irawa had improperly alienated the properties to which the plaintiff was entitled under an adoption which Irawa had made to her husband, and in that suit one issue raised was : Whether Irawa had reserved to her a life interest in the ancestral properties. In that suit the plaintiff succeeded in getting a decree for possession. Issue No. 2 was answered in the negative, so that it was held that Irawa was not entitled to the properties for her life. The decree made in the suit was 'the plaintiff do recover possession with future 'mesne profits.' The decree was affirmed in 1937 by this Court in appeal. The present suit, which was filed in 1938, is a suit to recover survey No. 415/...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Bhaskar Parulekar Vs. Krishnarao Moroba Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom317; (1942)44BOMLR718
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit brought by respondent No. 1 for possession of certain immoveable properties.2. The properties consisted of a house site survey No. 126B and a bungalow built thereon at Vijayadurg and a number of fields in the villages of Vijaya-durg and Giraye in the Devgad taluka of the Ratnagiri district. The basis of the respondent-plaintiff's claim is that the properties belonged to Vishnu defendant No. 1 who sold them to Himatlal Manji & Co., a firm of Marwaris doing business in Bombay, on July 29, 1926. The plaintiff purchased from the Marwaris on January 19, 1937. The defendants, except Nos. 13 to 19 who are tenants, are all relations of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is his brother and the others are the sons of his two other brothers Bhaskar and Vithal. They all claim to have become owners by adverse possession. Defendant No. 6 who is the principal defendant claims to be the owner of survey No. 126B and the bungalow under...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shankar Krishnaji Gavankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR439
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a revision application which arises in the following circumstances. On November 9, 1940, a criminal case was being tried before Mr. Salvi, Third Class Magistrate at Malvan, and one of the pleaders in the case was the present applicant, Mr. Gavankar. Mr. Gavankar put certain question's to a witness in cross-examination which the learned Magistrate disallowed. Thereupon Mr. Gavankar seems to have lost his temper and undoubtedly used insulting language to the Court; and I accept the statement of the learned Magistrate as to what took place. The pleader might then have been prosecuted under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code for offering insult to a public servant while such public servant was sitting for a judicial proceeding. In the normal course such a prosecution would be commenced and prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code; there would be a complaint by the Magistrate who had been insulted, and the case would be heard by ...
Tag this Judgment!Warubai Kriparam Wani Vs. Shivshankar Balmukund Shukla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom205(2); (1942)44BOMLR442
Beaumont, C.J.1. This application raises a small point under the Village Police Act. The accused was charged under Section 14, which enables the Police Patel to try cases of petty assault or abuse. The applicant made an application stating that she is a very respectable lady and comes from a high family, and asking to be allowed to appear by her pleader. The Police Patel rejected the application on the ground that there is no provision in the Village Police Act for appearance through a pleader. That no doubt is true, but, on the other hand, Section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code enables any person, accused of an offence before a criminal Court, to be defended by a pleader as of right; and I have no doubt that the Police Patel acting under Section 14 is a criminal Court. Therefore, the accused person has a right to appear through a pleader. But there is no provision in the Village Police Act, corresponding to Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which enables a Magistrate, if ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »