Mumbai Court February 1942 Judgments
Ganesh Ramchandra Thakur Vs. Gopal Lakshman Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819
Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Maruti Chaugule Vs. Mallappa Krishna Chaugule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom309; (1942)44BOMLR678
Divatia, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the finding about the plaintiff's adoption in a former execution proceeding operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties.2. The plaintiff brought the present suit to recover certain properties on the strength of an adoption made by a widow Shivubai to her husband Krishna who was their owner. After Shivubai's death, plaintiff's natural mother acting as his guardian had leased the suit lands to defendant No. 3 for ten years after the adoption. Defendant No. 3, however, in collusion with defendants. Nos. 1 and 2, made over possession to them alleging that he was the tenant of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit to recover the lands. Defendant No. 1, who was the contesting defendant, admitted that the lands. belonged to Krishna, and thereafter to his widow Shivubai. He, however, disputed the plaintiff's adoption on the ground that Shivubai was not in a sound mental condition so as to take t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babaji Shivram Hegiste
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR446
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the accused under Section 30 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act of 1939.2. The case against the accused was that on August 13, 1941, his shop was open at 9-40 p.m. contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act of 1939, which provides that, save as provided by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, no shop shall on any day be closed later than 9 p.m. The Act came into force on November 2, 1939.3. The accused's defense is that he was entitled under another enactment in force on August 13, 1941, to keep his shop open till midnight. The accused's shop is a tobacco shop, conducted under the terms of the Tobacco Duty (Town of Bombay) Act of 1857. Section 11 of that Act provides that it shall not be lawful for any person to sell any tobacco in Bombay without a license from the Commissioner of Customs, which license shall be in force for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Ramchandra Loyalka Vs. Jatashankar N. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom297; (1942)44BOMLR692
Blackwell, J.1. This case raises a curious point as to whether it is obligatory upon the plaintiff who seeks, as personal representative of his deceased father, to recover from the defendant a sum of money alleged to be due by the defendant in respect of contracts made by his deceased father, to submit the claim made by him to arbitration in accordance with the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, and whether the obtaining of an award in his favour is a condition precedent to the institution of any suit in respect of the transactions. After the issues had been raised learned counsel asked me to try this as a preliminary issue, and I agreed to do so. The issue has been argued upon the assumption that all the allegations made in the plaint are correct, and a number of documents have been put in by consent.2. The facts necessary for the determination of this issue may be stated shortly as follows:--3. Ramchandra Bhagwandas Loyalka, the deceased father of the plaintiff, was a memb...
Tag this Judgment!Nilkanth Ganesh Ranadive Vs. Dhondya Ganu Tandlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom316(2); (1942)44BOMLR733
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Mahad dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The learned Judge tried the suit as a small cause suit, and the only point open on this revision application is whether he had jurisdiction to hear the suit as a small cause suit.2. In the suit the plaintiff claims Rs. 15 as damages incurred by him by reason of the defendant having wrongfully taken fruit from the plaintiff's tree. The pleadings show that there was a dispute as to the ownership of the tree from which this fruit was taken, and the suit is in its nature a civil suit for trespass, and as the damages claimed are only Rs. 15, prima facie it would be triable as a small cause suit. But it is argued that it is not so triable, because it falls within Article 35, Clause (ii), of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That schedule contains exceptions to cases falling within the Act, and the particular item m...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Shiva Prasad Singh Vs. Tincouri Banerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR782
Charles Clauson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in the suit against a decree of the High Court at Patna affirming (with a trifling amendment dealing with a matter of interest) a decree of the Subordinate Judge, of Dhanbad, and ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs (with certain interest) a sum of Rs. 2,83,550, representing the principal and interest remaining due on a promissory note of February 22, 1934, after the defendant has been credited with certain sums paid on account of the note. The plaintiffs are the representatives of one Kedar, to whom the promissory note was given by the defendant.2. The circumstances attending the giving of the note may be stated quite shortly. Kedar had been the secretary of the defendant's predecessor in the family raj; and on that predecessor's death he became the secretary of the defendant; but shortly afterwards left his service and became adviser to the defendant's predecessor's widows, whom it will be convenient to refer to as t...
Tag this Judgment!Padmakant Motilal Vora Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipal Borough
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom9; (1942)44BOMLR814
Wassoodew, J.1. These two second appeals Nos. 931 and 968 of 1940 arise from a suit instituted by the plaintiff Padrnakant Motilal Vora, who prior to his suspension was a Sub-Overseer or Zilla Inspector in the Ahmedabad Municipality, for a declaration that he was wrongly and improperly dismissed from service by the Municipality and for a direction to that body that, he should be reinstated in service and paid his salary for the period of his suspension till reinstatement. The charges against him were that he in his official capacity was guilty of submitting false reports on three occasions in regard to certain building works within the municipal area, and that he was generally careless and negligent in his duties. The plaintiff was suspended upon the report of his superior by the Chief Officer of the Municipality on January 11, 1933, and, with the approval of the Standing Committee and after proper enquiry, was ultimately dismissed by the Municipality on June 23, 1933. His case is that...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mukhtiyarkhan Tajamulkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom207; (1942)44BOMLR432
Chagla, J.1. In this case the prosecution are calling one Ismail Amin Golandas, one of the panchas, to prove a panchnama prepared on August 12, 1941. This particular panch was not examined either before the Committing Magistrate or before Mr. Justice Blackwell in the earlier trial.2. Mr. Pardivala on behalf of the accused takes an objection that he is handicapped in his defense by reason of the fact that the statement of the evidence that this witness is going to give has not been furnished to him by the prosecution.3. My attention has been drawn to the considerable inconvenience to which panchas are being put. The prosecution has drawn my attention to the fact that, as it is, it is difficult to get members of the public to come forward to act as panchas. In view of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal [Emperor v. Mohanlal Bababhai(3)], panchnamas have now to be proved not by the investigating police-officer but by one or other of the panchas who have signed the panchnama. This e...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Karsandas Nanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom206(2); (1942)44BOMLR443
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by Government to enhance the sentence passed on accused No. 1 under Sections 4(a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act.2. The accused has exercised his right of challenging his conviction, but L think the conviction was justified by the evidence.[After discussing the evidence in the case his Lordship proceeded] :The learned Magistrate fined the accused Rs. 100, in default seven weeks' rigorous imprisonment, and Government have applied to enhance the sentence, and have argued that as a matter of law the learned Magistrate should have imposed the minimum fine of Rs. 500. Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act provides that for a first offence under the section the punishment shall be imprisonment which may extend to seven months, or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000, or both. Then there is a proviso that in the absence of special reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment s...
Tag this Judgment!Malkajappa Chanvirappa Hullur Vs. Rachappa Panchappa Guledgud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom305; (1942)44BOMLR673
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the appellate Judge dismissing his suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in passing through their open site while coming out from his house and also from obstructing the passage of the water of his bath room through the said open site. The facts found are that the plaintiff is a purchaser in a Court-sale of a house belonging to defendant No. 1, who is the main contestant in the suit and whom I will, therefore, call the defendant. At the time when the property was purchased by the plaintiff there was a door in the southern wall of that house from which there was an access to an open piece of land belonging to the defendant through which there was a way to go towards the west. There was also an outlet; in the southern wall for passage of the water of the house into that open piece of land. The plaintiff claimed the right of way through the door and the right to discharge water...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »