Mumbai Court March 1942 Judgments
K.M. Multani Vs. Paramount Talkies of India, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom241; (1942)44BOMLR505
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of, Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia. The plaintiff carries on the business of producing and distributing for the purpose of exhibition in India and elsewhere cinematographic motion pictures under the name of Paragon Pictures. The first defendants, who are the respondents, are a company registered in the United States of America, carrying on the business in Bombay and other places in India of importing and distributing cinematographic motion pictures for exhibition in various places in India.2. It appears from the evidence that during the year 1939, and in the early part of 1940, the plaintiff wrote, or procured the writing of, a story for a film, which was to bear the title of Virginia. The shooting of the film commenced in April, 1940, and on May 16 the name of Virginia was registered with the Sub-Registrar in Bombay, though admittedly such registration conferred no right whatever upon the plaintiff. The film was...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Gokuldas Shet Vs. Bhimrao Damu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom44; (1942)44BOMLR894
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit to recover Rs. 2,071 on a promissory note passed on June 8, 1934, in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 2 who held a power-of-attorney from the paternal grandmother of defendant No. 1 whose estate was managed by her during his minority. The promissory note was the last in a series of notes the first of which for Rs. 1,000 was passed by Damu, the father of defendant No. 1, in plaintiff's favour on July 29, 1923. On February 19, 1926, Damu passed to the plaintiff a fresh note for Rs. 1,300 in renewal of the first note. Thereafter in January, 1928, Damu died and the estate of his son was managed, though without any certificate as a guardian, by Bahinabai, the mother of Damu. On March 17, 1928, Bahinabai executed a power-of-attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 for doing all acts on her behalf for the management of defendant No. 1's estate. On January 17, 1929, defendant No. 2, acting under the power-of-attorney, executed a promiss...
Tag this Judgment!Jivatlal Purtapshi Vs. Lalbhai Fulchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom251; (1942)44BOMLR495
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia. The plaintiffs sue upon a promissory note dated November 10, 1937, and headed 'Ahmedabad'. The note is in these terms :On demand I, Shah Lalbhai Fulchand of Ahmedabad promise to pay to the order of Sheth Jivatlal Purtapshi of Bombay the sum of Rs. 22,500, twenty-two thousand five hundred only at the rate of six per cent. per annum for value received.2. The note was made at Ahmedabad, and the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit upon the promissory note. That depends upon whether any part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court. As the note was not made within the jurisdiction of this Court, and contains no express provision as to place of payment or otherwise conferring jurisdiction upon this Court, the only ground upon which such jurisdiction can be founded must be that the money is in law payable in Bombay. The plaintiff demanded payment in Bombay,...
Tag this Judgment!Trikamdas Jethabhai Vs. Jivraj Kalianji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom314; (1942)44BOMLR699
Blackwell, J.1. This is a motion by the defendants asking for a stay of this suit upon the ground that there is an earlier suit between the same parties instituted in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Kar-war in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue.The application is supported by an affidavit of defendant No. 1. The facts which give rise to the question may be shortly stated as follows:--2. The plaintiffs and the defendants carried on business in partnership from November 15, 1936, in Bombay in the name and style of Keshavlal & Co., and at Kumta and Sirsi in North Kanara in the name and style of Anandrai Himatlal & Co. Defendant No. 1 used to manage the business, of the partnership at Sirsi and defendant No. 2 used to manage the business of the partnership in Bombay. In the year 1940 one Lalchand Haribhai Gandhi, a brother-in-law of plaintiff No. 1, came to work in the Sirsi branch as a clerk. According to the defendants by his tactless condu...
Tag this Judgment!Promatha Nath Mullick Vs. Batliwalla and Karani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom224; (1942)44BOMLR475
Somjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia decreeing the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant for Rs. 10,837-8-0. The plaintiffs are certified share, stock and exchange brokers in the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association of Bombay. The defendant is a constituent of the plaintiffs and lives in Calcutta. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover this amount of Rs. 10,837-8-0 from the defendant in respect of certain transactions in shares effected by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of the defendant on the Stock Exchange in Bombay. The defendant filed a written statement raising a large number of defences, and the learned Judge decided against the defendant on all those defences. 2. The first question raised before us by Mr. Munshi the learned counsel for the defendant, is that the plaint as originally filed disclosed no cause of action. On July 4, 1941, an order was obtained by the plaintiffs from the learned Judge granting them leave to amen...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Bros. Vs. Shree Meenakshi Mills, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom236; (1942)44BOMLR485
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Chagla, and the dispute arises in this way.2. There was an agreement between the Shree Meenakshi Mills, Ltd., and Messrs. Patel Bros., under which the mill company employed Messrs. Patel Bros, as brokers to carry out various transactions in the markets of Bombay, Liverpool and New York, and it was provided that the business should be subject to the rules, regulations and by-laws for the time being in force in the market in which the business was required to be transacted ; so that the business in Bombay was subject to the rules and regulations of the Bombay market, and those rules are admittedly the rules and by-laws of the East India 'Cotton Association, Ltd. The last clause in the contract provided that no suit in regard to any matter arising out of the transactions in Bombay, Liverpool or New York cotton markets should be instituted in any Court save the High Court of Judicature or the Court of Small Causes at Bombay...
Tag this Judgment!Shivnarayan Sarupchand Vs. Bilasrai Juharmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom208; (1942)44BOMLR466
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Chagla, and, in my opinion, it is quite impossible to support the order.2. The plaintiffs' case is this. Defendant No. 1, in 1926, set aside a sum of one lakh of rupees for establishing and maintaining a hospital at Bagar, a town in Jaipur State, for providing free medical relief to the poor. That sum has subsequently been largely increased, and we are told that defendant No. 1 has altogether contributed something like eight lakhs to this charitable purpose, On April 26, 1926, defendant No. 1 and others, who, I suppose, were acting as trustees, executed a declaration of trust agreeing to apply the trust funds in their hands in establishing and maintaining a hospital or hospitals in Bagar, and Clause 3 provides as follows :The said trust moneys, securities, investments and the properties forming part of the trusts shall be called Shivnarayan Juharmal Bagar Hospital Trust Fund and the Hospital or Hospitals establis...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Sri NaraIn Khanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR788
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings. The property concerned consists of a house and outhouses belonging to the respondent situate within the Meerut Cantonment. The land on which it stands was held by him from the Government on what is commonly known as the cantonment tenure. Grants to individuals of lands within cantonments are regulated by General Order of the Governor-General in Council, No. 179, dated September 12, 1836, which has been repeated in a series of subsequent regulations. Their Lordships had occasion to consider the nature of the cantonment tenure in a land acquisition case which came before the Board recently, Hari Chand v. Secretary of State far India (1939) L.R. 66 IndAp 258 from the Peshawar Cantonment. In that case their Lordships observed that (page 259) --Where the Government grant any rights to individuals within the area of the cantonments one of the cardinal conditions is that the Government retain the power of resu...
Tag this Judgment!Meghji Hirji and Co. Vs. Mangilal Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom321; (1942)44BOMLR752
Chagla, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that Gordhandas Jitmal, the father of the defendant, had appointed them as commission agents and pacca adatias to effect forward transactions in diverse commodities on his behalf in Bombay. The plaintiffs allege that an account in respect of the dealings was made between the plaintiffs and Gordhandas Jitmal on January 26, 1940, when a sum of Rs. 15,092-10-3 was found due and owing by the deceased to the plaintiffs, and on the same day a promissory note promising to pay Rs. 11,000 was passed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The present suit is filed against the defendant as the heir and legal representative of Gordhandas Jitmal for the recovery of the balance due under the promissory note dated January 26, 1940. The relief against the defendant is restricted to the payment of the amount out of the estate of his deceased father come to his hands.3. In the written statement the defence taken by the def...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahomed Hanif
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR456
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against their conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, house-breaking by day, and on the admission of the appeal this Court gave notice to enhance the sentences of nine months' rigorous imprisonment upon each of them.2. The accused were caught red-handed. They were seen by Miss Daruwalla bending over the lock of the door of a flat on the ground floor of a building. When she raised an alarm, accused No. 1 threw away a jemmy which was in his hand, and both of them ran away, but they were caught. So that there can be no doubt whatever that they were guilty of the offence of which they were convicted.3. Recently this Court has had to send for the record in a considerable number of cases in the Courts of Presidency Magistrates, and to enhance the sentences passed. That practice is to be regretted, because it involves a considerable waste of public time and money, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »