Mumbai Court August 1942 Judgments
Totaram Ichharam Wani Vs. Dattu Mangu Wani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom143; (1943)45BOMLR231
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application made in respect of two orders made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon, one made on August 18, and the other on September 9, 1941.2. The plaintiffs are suing for partition, and they filed a plaint on August 18, 1941, with a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis, and on the same day,. and before their application for leave to sue in forma pauperis had been considered, the learned Judge appointed ex parte commissioners under Order XXXIX, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with power to dig up the places on the defendants' land shown by the plaintiffs for the purpose of taking possession of ornaments. Subsequently on notice to the defendants the order was continued on September 9.3. The first point taken is that the learned Judge had no power to make any order under Order XXXIX, Rule 7, because there was no suit in existence. The argument is that until the plaintiffs' application for leave to sue in forma ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR53
Kania, J.1. This is a petition to have the Court's decision on the question whether the Bombay Registrar has jurisdiction to entertain an application for registration of a particular trade-mark of the petitioners. The matter comes before me by way of appeal under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act (V of 1940).2. The petitioners are a joint stock company having their principal and registered office at Bangalore in the Mysore State. They made an application to the Bombay Registrar for registration of their trade-mark 'TOURIST' in respect of certain textile goods. The Bombay Registrar felt a doubt on the construction of Sections 62 and 63 of the Act about his jurisdiction in the matter, and for reasons stated in his opinion refused to register the trade-mark with a view that the petitioners may approach the High Court for the Court's opinion.3. In order to appreciate the extent of the Bombay Registrar's jurisdiction it is necessary to turn to the sections of the Act. It may be noted that b...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Abaji Gujar Vs. Dagadu Asaram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom127; (1943)45BOMLR248
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to obtain a declaration that the sale of certain property in a darkhast at the instance of defendant No. 1 was illegal and that the auction-purchasers had no right to take its possession from the plaintiff.2. The property consisting of survey No. 398 originally belonged to one Maruti and his brother Pandu. In May, 1912, it was mortgaged by the two brothers to the father of defendant No. 1. Then in 1923 after Pandu's death Maruti sold part of it to one Shriram, who in turn sold it to defendant No. 2, Ibrahim, in July, 1927. Thereafter defendant No. l's father released his mortgage rights over pot hissa No. 1, and obtained a decree against Maruti and two subsequent mortgagees in respect of pot hissa No. 2 on August 9, 1922. It was a compromise decree) under an agreement between Maruti and defendant No. l's father by which the latter admitted for the purpose' of the suit that Maruti was an agriculturist. The decree was made bindin...
Tag this Judgment!Lalbhai Fulchand Vs. the Ahmedabad Share and Stock Brokers' Associatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom180; (1943)45BOMLR226
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Ahmedabad upholding a decision of the fourth Joint Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad.2. The case arises in this way. The plaintiff and defendant No. 16 are both members of the Ahmedabad Share and Stock Brokers' Association which is sued as defendant No. 1 and which I will refer to as 'the Association.' Defendants Nos. 2 to 15 are said to be officers of the Association and defendant No. 3 is described as 'Amratlal Dalsukhbhai Haji,' and he is, we are told, the same person as defendant No. 16 who is described as 'Amratlal Dalsukhbhai'. It is irregular to sue the same person twice over, and if he is sued twice over, it is desirable to sue him in the same name. His name had better be struck out as defendant No. 16. He is sufficiently before the Court in his capacity as defendant No. 3, and I will refer to him hereafter, for brevity's sake, as 'the defendant.'3. The plaintiff and the defendant are, and at all m...
Tag this Judgment!Erachshaw Hormusji Ginwala Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom160; (1943)45BOMLR220
Divatia, J.1. This is a revisional application by the plaintiff against an order granting the application made by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, for amendment of the written statement by adding the plea that the suit was barred under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for want of a proper and adequate notice and that it was not properly valued for pleaders fees.2. The suit was brought for a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to recover from the plaintiff the amounts which were paid from time to time as tagavi loans to certain persons from whom the plaintiff held an ijara. It was averred in the plaint, among other things, that a notice had been given by the plaintiff to the Secretary of State for India in Council on July 12, 1935, as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was filed on February 18, 1936, the written statement was filed on October 9, 1936, and although a large number of points were taken, there was no ple...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sardar Mohammad Aurangzebkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom52; (1942)44BOMLR916
1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates on a charge preferred against him under Section 109(1) and 120(c) of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890). The question raised is one of some importance to railway companies, and to passengers who use the railways, because it involves the right of a railway company to reserve seats for passengers, and to see that the reservation is enforced against persons who disregard it.2. What happened in this case was that the accused reserved a berth in a second class compartment on the Frontier Mail, leaving the Bombay Central Station on June 17, 1940, and he was issued a reservation) ticket. We have not got in evidence the actual ticket issued to him, but we have got a sample ticket issued for a different date, and an official of the railway company admitted in the witness-box that that sample was similar in character to the ticket actually issued to the accused. Some evidence w...
Tag this Judgment!Ramabai Balkrishna Hasabnis Vs. Janardan Eknath Hasabnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom158; (1943)45BOMLR244
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a decree for maintenance in favour of a Hindu widow. It is to the effect that the defendants are to pay to the plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rs. 180 per year, and if they failed to do so for any one year at the time fixed, the plaintiff was to recover the same by sale of certain properties which were charged for the payment of maintenance. On the defendants committing default in making the annual payment, the plaintiff applied to execute the decree by making alternative prayers that certain moneys belonging to the defendants, which were outside the charged properties, should be attached and' ordered to be paid to the plaintiff, or on failure of the payment, some of the properties charged under the decree should be sold and the decree satisfied out of the sale proceeds. Thereupon the executing Court passed an order for attachment of the moveables belonging to the defendants. The judgment-debtors applied to set aside that order. The...
Tag this Judgment!Malkarjun Annarao Gambhire Vs. Sarubai Shivyogi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom187; (1943)45BOMLR259
Divatia, J.1. This appeal by the original defendant No. 2 arises in a suit by a Hindu widow for a declaration that a sale-deed dated June 28, 1937, passed by her deceased husband's brother defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, was not binding on her and that the house sold thereunder was liable' for her claim of maintenance and residence. It was further prayed that the amount fixed for her maintenance should be charged on the suit house.2. The facts shortly are that defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff's husband were brothers forming a Hindu joint family. Defendant No. 1 was the elder brother and in management of the property, the plaintiff's husband being a minor. The family house was made the subject of a mortgage in 1922 and there were other subsequent mortgages of the house. In October, 1929, defendant No. 1 for himself and as guardian of the plaintiff's husband mortgaged the house to one Sarubai for Rs. 1,500. The purpose of the loan was the payment of the debts incurred for ...
Tag this Judgment!Odhavji Anandji Vs. Haridas Ranchhordas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom238; (1943)45BOMLR400
Kania, J.1. This notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is opposed on the ground that the application for execution is time-barred. The decree in this suit was passed on September 3, 1928, for Rs. 10,000 against the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 had made no application for execution at all till August 28, 1940. He then made the first application for execution being Application No. 524 of 1940. The application is on the usual printed form prescribed by the High Court Rules, and in the last column, in respect of the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required, it is mentioned 'By issuing a notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, of the C.P.C.' As no application for execution had been made since the date of the decree, the office issued a notice on September 19, 1940, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the decree should not be executed against him. That notice could not be served on the plaintiff for a long time, and as a year was about to expire, according...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mahalaxmi Vs. the Deputy Nazir, District Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom213; (1943)45BOMLR434
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether in the Broach District of the Bombay Province, which is governed by the law of the Mitakshara and the Mayukha, a full sister is a preferential heir to a half sister. The question arises in an administration suit relating to the estate of Bhikhabhai Ranchhod, who died on October 11, 1935. He was succeeded by his mother Laxmi, the second wife of Ranchhod. She died on April 10, 1927. Plaintiff is Ranchhod's daughter by his first wife who predeceased him and is therefore the half sister of Bhikhabhai, the last male holder. Defendant No. 1 is Laxmi's daughter and therefore Bhikhabai's full sister. The plaintiff's claim to share equally with defendant No. 1 is based on the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act II of 1929 The suit has been dismissed by the lower Courts on the ground that the plaintiff as half sister is excluded by the full sister.2. Apart from Act II of 1929 it is conceded that the plaintiff has no case. The pref...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »