Mumbai Court February 1942 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.
Emperor Vs. Ramdas Nathubhai Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom216; (1942)44BOMLR449
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Poona. It raises a question, which must be of very common occurrence, and indeed this has been argued as a test case.2. The accused had a driving license, which expired on February 2, 1941, and on February 17 his license was examined, and was found to have expired, On the same day, However, he went to the Regional Transport Officer, and renewed his license, and the renewal was granted. A complaint was lodged against him on June 13, and he was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not having had an effective license on February 17. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to us, because he thinks that the conviction was wrong.3. Now, under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 it is provided that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective license issued to himself authorizing him to drive the vehicle. Secti...
Navroji Ardeshir Cooper Vs. the Official Assignee of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR785
Thankerton, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a litigation in which the trial Court and the Appellate Division of the High Court have both given judgment on the merits to the same effect. The latter; stages of the litigation have been conducted at the expense of the present appellants, they having indemnified the trustee until after the decision of the High Court. The present appellants then applied to the trustee to carry the case further or, failing that, to allow his name to be used by them, they offering a continued indemnity to the trustee. The trustee declined, and the result was a notice of motion on January 7, 1937, on the Insolvency Side of the High Court, asking the Court to direct the Official Assignee to lend his name to the applicants for the purpose of carrying on the appeal to His Majesty in Council, they offering the usual proper indemnity. That motion was heard in the first instance by Blackwell J. and was refused. The present appellants then appealed to the Appell...
Karimmiya Hamdumiya Soniwala Vs. Jafarali Bawamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom279; (1942)44BOMLR666
Beaumont, C.J.1. This purports to be an appeal from the District Judge of Ahmedabad in a matter which arises under the Wakf Act, and a preliminary objection is 'taken that no appeal lies.2. Under the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923 mutawallis of wakfs are required to furnish to the Court certain particulars relating to the wakf and accounts. The Court, so far as the present matter is concerned, is the District Court. Under that Act the Court is acting merely as an office in which accounts have to be filed. But under the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act of 1935, the Court is given certain judicial powers. Under Sections 6A and 6B it can make orders on the mutawalli requiring him to do certain things, and under Section 6C the Court may, either on its own motion or upon the application of any person claiming to have an interest in a wakf, hold an inquiry on the matters therein specified, and the result of the inquiry has to be recorded. Then Section 6F provides that the entries made by th...
Emperor Vs. Chunilal Bhagwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR438
Beaumont, C.J.1. [His Lordship upheld the. acquittal on merits and remarked : ] With regard to the point of practice, it was recently held by this Court in Paragji v. Bhagwanji (1939) 41 Bom. L.R. 1231 that in appeals against conviction only the Crown is entitled to be served with notice and to be heard, though in private prosecutions especially the Court may, in its discretion, allow the complainant. to be heard ; and, in my opinion, that rule applies to cases in which the complainant has been awarded compensation out of a fine imposed. But the further question arises, whether in cases in which some award has been made either to the complainant or to somebody else, notice should be served on the person entitled to the award. The practice in this Court seems to be that in revision applications where compensation has been awarded to the complainant, notice is served upon him ; but that is not done in cases of appeals. We think the correct rule should be that where a person, whether the ...
Hirachand Himatlal Marwadi Vs. Kashinath Thakurji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom339; (1942)44BOMLR727
Macklin, J.1. This appeal arises out of an agreement for a mortgage. The plaintiff was one of the creditors of defendant No. 1 for a substantial amount, and defendant No. 1 is the proprietor of two cinema houses in Poona city, one of which is known as 'Rainbow Talkies'. On June 1, 1937, at a time when defendant No. 1 was considerably indebted to the plaintiff, he executed two documents in favour of the plaintiff on the same day and registered them both. The first was a document giving the plaintiff the right to temporary possession of the cinema houses subject to certain obligations with respect to paying off the defendant's debts, and the other was an agreement to mortgage the cinema houses within three months. On July 9, 1937, defendant No, 3, another of the creditors, obtained a lease of the Rainbow Talkies from the defendant; and on July 16 defendant No. 4 obtained a mortgage of the same property from the defendant. On August 11, 1937, an application in insolvency was made against ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›