Mumbai Court July 1942 Judgments
Krishnaji Narayan Deshmukh Vs. Bhagwan Ganesh Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom113; (1943)45BOMLR191
Divatia, J.1. These are two companion appeals in which the plaintiffs are the same and the contending defendant is different. The point, however, is the same. It is whether the transaction in each case is a sale or a mortgage, and whether the transferee in each case is a benamidar for a third person. The plaintiffs being agriculturists, the suits were governed by Chap. III of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, under which it is open to the parties to lead oral evidence for proving that the transaction was a mortgage in spite of the provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both the lower Courts have held that the transaction in each case is a mortgage and not a sale, and that in each case the ostensible purchaser is a benamidar for one Keshav who is defendant No. 2. The decree for redemption has Been passed in the plaintiffs' favour after taking accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. It is urged by Mr. Desai for the appellants that it was not ope...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Haji Hassim Ibrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR810
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the accused against his conviction under Section 60, Clause (a), Sub-clause (iii), of the Factories Act, read with Sections 22 and 23 of the Act and Rule 37 of the Factories Rules. The important question, which arises is whether Rule 37 of the Factories Rules is valid.2. Rule 37 provides (inter alia) that every building of more than one storey shall be provided with at least two sets of stairs, and is a rule which is intended to provide facilities for escape in case of fire. The rule was expressed to be made under Sections 22, 23 and 32 of the Factories Act. Section 22 provides that 'in every factory such precautions against fire shall be taken as may be prescribed,' and 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules. Section 23, Sub-section (I), provides that 'every factory shall be provided with such means of escape in case of fire as can reasonably be required in the circumstances of each factory.' Sub-section (2) provides that 'if...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Damodar Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR804
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Presidency Magistrate, Seventh Court, in which he directed a child, who was tried before him, to be sent to a certified school. There is, I think, no doubt that the order was a wise order, if the Magistrate had power to make it. But it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the ordinary Presidency Magistrates have no power to try children, who, it is said, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.2. Section 46 of the Bombay Children Act, 1924, provides in Sub-section (I) that the Provincial Government may provide for the establishment in any area of one or more separate Courts for the conduct of proceedings under the Act at which the attendance of a child is required. Then there is a proviso:that where a child is accused of an offence triable jointly with any other person not being a child, nothing in this Sub-section shall affect...the powers of the court, to try such other person under any other l...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Firm of Solicitors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom331; (1942)44BOMLR796
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a notice to E and L, who are the two partners in the firm of E. L. & Co. to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of Court in writing a letter of July 18, 1942, to Messrs. Craigie, Blunt & Caroe.2. So far as L is concerned, he says that he knew nothing whatever about the letter, and I have no doubt that that statement is true, because E is, I know, the partner attending to the matter. I make no order against L.3. Now, what happened was this. These proceedings are a divorce suit by a husband against his wife, and E's firm is appearing for the wife. The petitioner made an application to me in chambers for leave to amend the petition by alleging a further act of adultery, and the adultery was alleged to have taken place in a block of flats known as 'Oceana' during a particular month. Mr. Forbes, who appeared as counsel for the wife, asked for further particulars as to the flat in 'Oceana' in which adultery was alleged to have been committed, an...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Appa Jadhav Vs. Tippaya Appaya Mathapati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom95; (1943)45BOMLR186
Divatia, J.1. The question in these two appeals is whether the defendant is a permanent tenant of the lands in dispute. The plaintiff is a purchaser from the family of the original landlord. His suit was to recover possession of the lands on the basis that the defendant was an annual tenant. According to the defendant he was a permanent tenant and his family was in possession for more than three quarters of a century on payment of the same rent. He also contended that he was a mirasi tenant under a patta and that therefore he could not be evicted. The material questions, therefore, were whether the defendant was proved to be a mirasi tenant or in any case a permanent tenant under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. So far as the mirasi nature of the holding is concerned, both the Courts have found on the evidence that there was no grant or patta, and that therefore the defendant cannot be regarded as a mirasi tenant. That finding is not assailed before me.3. The lower Courts ...
Tag this Judgment!Pannaji Devichand Vs. Lakkaji Dolaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom156; (1943)45BOMLR181
Divatia, J.1. This revisional application arises in a dispute between two rival decree-holders for rateable distribution of certain assets realised in execution. The petitioners obtained a decree against the firm of Kapurji Magniram by its proprietor and vahivatdar Sogaji Ammaji Marwadi, and they filed Darkhast No. 23 of 1937 to execute the decree. Thereafter the opponents obtained a decree against the said Sogaji Marwadi and four other persons in their individual capacities, and filed darkhast No. 176 of 1939 to execute their decree. In the opponents' darkhast certain property belonging to Sogaji was sold and the sale-proceeds thereof were deposited in Court. The petitioners applied for rateable distribution of the assets inasmuch as they had obtained a decree against Sogaji. Their case was that in their suit against the firm of Kapurji, Sogaji was served and had also appeared in his own name. The decree was, therefore, executable personally against Sogaji. That being so, the capacity...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhia Limji Vs. Nagindas Chhotalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom115; (1943)45BOMLR178
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decree of the lower appellate Court on a promissory note passed by him in the plaintiff's favour. The note was passed on September 3, 1930, for Rs. 386. It was stated in the plaint that although the suit was brought on August 15, 1939, more than three years after the promissory note, limitation was saved because of two payments of Rs, 5 and Rs. 45 having been made by the defendant and endorsed on the promissory note under his thumb-marks. The payments were on August 22, 1933, and August 15, 1936, and it was alleged that as the suit was within three years from the date of the last payment under the defendant's thumb-mark, it was within time. The defendant's answer was that the promissory note was not supported by any consideration, and that in any case the suit was time-barred, inasmuch as the two alleged payments, even if proved, were not sufficient to save limitation.2. The trial Court held on the evidence that the considera...
Tag this Judgment!Chhabildas Nandlal and Co. Vs. Damodar Khetsey and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom199; (1943)45BOMLR387
Blackwell, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the defendants to stay this suit pursuant to Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Several points were raised by the plaintiffs in the affidavit of Tribhowandas Valjee Mehta, a munim of the plaintiffs, in their affidavit in reply dated June 17, 1942, but Mr. Desai for the plaintiffs has relied only upon, two points, (1) that there is no binding agreement to refer, and (.2) that the defendants were not ready and willing at the date of the filing of the suit to refer the matters to arbitration.2. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it is alleged that on November 20, 1940, the plaintiffs placed an offer with the defendants for the purchase of twelve tons of, galvanised plain iron sheets of the size and price therein mentioned c.i.f. Bombay, shipment January and/or February at sellers' option subject to sellers' ability to obtain steamer space, the country of origin being America. The terms and conditions of the offer were set out ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Lalbhai Vs. Chinubhai Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR1075
B.J. Desai, J.1. The office of managing agents of a company is, distinguishable from the question of remuneration. Both are assignable : Section 87B of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The defendant was a trustee for his brothers both for earning commission as also for management. You cannot divorce management from earning of commission.2. I ask for specific performance of the agreement dated September 18, 1940, (exhibit N). It is an agreement to assign or transfer managing agency of the defendant to himself and his two brothers for a good consideration. The plaintiffs are large shareholders and can protect their interest by jointly managing with the defendants, and this is not measurable in terms of money. The plaintiffs seek specific performance in order to protect and perfect the right which they already had and which they have been enjoying. See Lindley on Partnership, 10th edn., p. 439. The contract to assign the office of management is not a contract of personal service or a contr...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR807
John Beaumont, C.J.1 This is an application to the Court, which raises a question which must be of common occurrence, and is of considerable importance.2. The accused woman was convicted by one of the Presidency Magistrates under Sections 342 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate sentenced her to four months' rigorous imprisonment on the charge under Section 373, and to two months' rigorous imprisonment on the charge under Section 342. The sentences were passed on April 8 last, and the accused was in prison until May 13 when she was released on bail; so that she has served about five weeks' imprisonment. Then on June 25 the conviction under Section 373 was set aside by this Court, but the conviction under Section 342 was upheld, and the accused thereupon surrendered to her bail.3. An application was then made to the Governor of the jail where she is imprisoned to ascertain his view as to the date from which the sentence under Section 342, which was upheld by this Court, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »