Mumbai Court July 1942 Judgments
Piroja Ghadiali Vs. Pestonji Ghadiali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR36
N.J. Wadia, J.1. After the crass-examination of the defendant by Mr. Manecksha and re-examination by Mr Banaji was closed, Mr. Forbes asked for leave to cross-examine the defendant. The Indian Evidence Act gives the right of cross-examination only to the adverse party. In the present case the defendant and the co-defendant have both denied the adultery, and, so far as the written statements put in by them go, their defences are identical. There is nothing in the evidence given by the defendant which can in any way be said to be adverse to the co-defendant. The general rule is that a defendant may cross-examine his co-defendant who gives evidence, or any of his co-defendant's witnesses, if his co-defendant's interest is hostile to his own: Halsbury, 2nd edn., Vol. XIII, p. 75, and also Vol. X, pp. 736-737. It is only where the evidence of a co-defendant or a co-respondent is adverse to 'the defendant or the respondent that the defendant or respondent can claim the right to cross-examine...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gordhandas Nathalal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom76; (1942)44BOMLR800
John Beaumont, C.J.1. These are two appeals presented by the Government of Bombay against acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of the two accused who had been convicted by the trial Court of an offence under Section 44 (b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.2. The relevant facts are that accused No. 1 is a registered consumer of electricity, and accused No. 2 is an electrical wiring contractor. Accused No. 1 owns a house in Ahmedabad, which is supplied, with electric current by the Ahmedabad Electricity Company, which is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act. Accused No. 1 had erected a mandap in his compound in connection with a marriage ceremony, and electric current had been supplied to that mandap with the consent of the licensee from March 9 to 11, 1940, but on March 12 the supply to the mandap had been disconnected. On the 14th some of the lights in the mandap were connected up with the installation in accused No. 1's house, and it is suggested that that...
Tag this Judgment!Virangauda Lingangauda Hiregaudar Vs. Yellappa Shidappa Tambakad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom56; (1943)45BOMLR17
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is of limited scope, beingWhether the decision of the full bench in Sakharam Narayan v. Balkrishna Sadashiv I.L.R. (1925) 49 Bom. 739 is no longer good law or requires reconsideration in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Jatindra Nath Roy v. Nagendra Nath Roy and Balasnbrahmamya Pandya Thalaivar v. Subbayya Tevar. (1937) L.R. 65 IndAp 932. We have to see whether, in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Jatindra Nath Roy v. Nagendra Nath Roy and Balasubrahmanya Pandya Thalaivar v. Subbayya Tevar, the decision of the full bench of this Court, which normally would bind us, is still good law. We are not concerned to consider which view of the law we prefer.3. The question at issue is, whether the mother's brother is to be preferred as heir to the father's sister's son. It is not disputed that both the mother's brother and the father's sister's son are atma bandhus, that is to say, they are bandhus of the same class...
Tag this Judgment!Dinshaw Iron Works Vs. Miakhan Adamji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom42; (1942)44BOMLR924
John Beaumont, C. J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against a decision of the Full Court of the Bombay Small Cause Court.2. The facts giving rise to the application are these. Down to December, 1937, the defendant-firm, which is called Dinshaw Iron Works, was carried on by two ladies who are the present applicants. On December 1, 1937, they transferred the business to another firm which continued to carry on the business under the former name of Dinshaw Iron Works. The plaintiffs had supplied goods to Dinshaw Iron Works before the transfer of the business from the present applicants, and they continued to supply goods to the firm thereafter. In the present suit they sue the applicants for the price of goods supplied in March and April, 1940, that is to say, more than two years after the business had been transferred, and their case is that they had no notice of the transfer of the business, and that they are, therefore, entitled to look t...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Ramaji Patil Vs. Vasudev Hanmant Gumaste Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom89; (1943)45BOMLR95
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the respondents, claiming to be the nearest reversioners of one Pandurang Rayaji, for a declaration that the adoption of defendant No. 1 by Godubai defendant No. 2 is invalid.2. Godubai's husband was the younger brother of Pandurang Rayaji. He died without issue in about 1865. There was an elder brother Bhimrao who died about 1877 leaving no son, but, as the plaintiffs allege, leaving a daughter Venkubai who married Hanmant the great-grandfather of the plaintiffs. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties :- Rayaji ________________|_______________________ | | | Bhimrao Pandurang Ramchanda = Godubai | | (defendant No. 2). | | | Venkubai = Hanmant Umaji Hanmant | (defendatn No. 1) ____________ | | Umaji Pandurang = Tulsabai _________|___________ | | Hanmant Bhimaji | | Vasudeva Pandurang (plaintiff No. 1) (Plaintiff No. 2).3. The family was a joint Hindu family. The case of an alleged partition in ...
Tag this Judgment!Bayabai Vs. Bayabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom328(2); (1942)44BOMLR792
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Esmail Ahmed by his divorced wife Hawabai. Esmail Ahmed died on December 3, 1941. Defendant No. 1 was the second wife of Esmail Ahmed, and defendant No. 2 is the son of Esmail Ahmed by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegation that Esmail Ahmed died intestate leaving property, and the plaintiff and the two defendants are the only heirs of the deceased according to Mahomedan law.2. In their written statement the defendant set up a will made by the deceased on October 7, 1933. Under this will excepting a bequest in favour of the plaintiff of Rs. 500 for marriage expenses, the plaintiff is not benefited at all. The testator directs under the will that a sum not exceeding Rs. 1,000 should be spent for his funeral and other obsequial ceremonies. He also directs that a sum of Rs. 500 be paid to Fatmabai, daughter of defendant No. 1 by her predeceased husband. The testator also directs the payment of Rs. 25 per month...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ismail Karimbhai Mansuri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Bom328(1); (1942)44BOMLR799
John Beaumont, C.J.1. These are appeals by Government against the acquittal of the accused of an offence under Section 18(1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, XXIII of 1931. For the purpose of the present appeals, I will assume that accused No. 1 published an unauthorized news-sheet, and that the present appellant, who is the keeper of a printing press, printed that news-sheet. Section 18(1) provides that whoever makes, sells, distributes, publishes or publicly exhibits or keeps for sale, distribution or publication, any unauthorized news-sheet or newspaper, shall be punishable. A 'newspaper' is defined as meaning any periodical work containing public news or comments on public news, and 'news-sheet' is defined as any document other than a newspaper containing public news or comments on public news or any matter described in Sub-section (1) of Section 4; and an 'unauthorized news-sheet' means any news-sheet, publication of which has not been authorized under Section 15.2. The only q...
Tag this Judgment!Murarrao Narsingrao Mutalik Desai Vs. Govind Santu Bhosale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom26; (1942)44BOMLR847
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Mamlatdar refusing to decree possession in favour of the landlord, which was upheld by the Collector of Belgaum.2. The points which arise are under the Bombay Small Holders Relief Act of 1938. That 'Act, as originally passed, was to remain in force up to March 31, 1939, that is to say, for one year. It has subsequently been extended for a year in 1939, 1940, and 1941. I am concerned with the extension in 1940, because the present suit was filed in 1940. Now, under Section 9(7), as extended in the year 1940, it is provided that no tenant, who in effect is an agriculturist, shall be evicted, if such tenant tenders to the landlord or any person acting on his behalf before May 15, 1940, rent due in respect of the land for the year ending with June 30, 1940, and is willing to hold the land thereafter as a tenant on the same terms and conditions on which he was holding the same at the date when the cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Cursetji Jamshedji Ardaseer Wadia Vs. Dr. R.D. Shiralee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom32; (1942)44BOMLR859
Kania, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award made by one Mr. G, A. Kamtekar on September 8, 1941.2. The petitioners are the present trustees of the trusts created by the last will and testament of the late Mr. Ardeshir Hormusji Wadia. As such trustees they own numerous properties consisting of large tracts of open land at Kurla and several properties in the adjoining six villages. One property is at Parel also. Except the second petitioner the remaining trustees reside in Bombay. The second petitioner has been living in England and has an English wife. He comes to Bombay at intervals of two or four years, stays a month or so here and returns to England. In respect of the management of the trust properties, since 1882 there is a trust office at Kurla. For the Parel property a separate mehta is employed. He collects the rent which is used for charities in Bombay according to the trust-deed.3. Two different plots of land at Kurla were let out by the trustees to two different parti...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Krishna Mahar Vs. Parvatibai Vishvanath Suryavanshl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom63; (1942)44BOMLR903
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings raising a point of limitation.2. In 1932 plaintiff, who is respondent here, filed a money suit against the defendant. On July 5, 1933, a decree was passed providing that the sum of Rs. 502 was to be paid by monthly installments of Rs. 25 beginning from August, 1933, and in case of default in payment of three installments, the plaintiff was to be entitled to recover the whole remaining amount. The defendant appealed to the District Judge. While this appeal was pending, on March 17, 1934, the plaintiff filed a darkhast. The original darkhast has not been produced, but no payments had been made by the defendant, and it is common ground that this darkhast must have been one to recover the whole amount remaining due, that is to say, the decree-holder had exercised the option given to him by the decree. A warrant was issued for the attachment of defendant's moveable property, but nothing came of this, and on June 22, 1934, the darkh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›