Mumbai Court August 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.
Gangappagouda Gadigeppagouda Patil Vs. Basayya Shivarudrayya Lingad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom167; (1943)45BOMLR215
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are second appeals from decisions of the District Judge of Bijapur, all raising the same point of law.2. The plaintiff in all these suits was suing for damages for defamation, the statements made by the several defendants being substantially the same. The trial Judge decreed the plaintiff's suits, holding that the statements were defamatory, untrue and made maliciously. The learned District Judge in appeal set aside the decrees passed by the trial Judge on the ground that the statements, which he agreed were defamatory, untrue and malicious, were absolutely privileged, and the question we have to decide is whether that view of the law is right. We are, of course, bound by the findings of the lower Courts as to the facts that the statements were untrue and malicious, and there can be no question that they were defamatory in their nature : so that it is only on that basis that we have to consider whether they were privileged. No qualified privilege will h...
Dhanraj Yugulkishore and Co. Vs. Babulal Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom206; (1943)45BOMLR396
Kania, J.1. This is an application to restrain the defendant from proceeding with suit No. 62 of 1942 filed by him in the Court of the Munsif at Bnda (U.P.).2. Plaintiffs are commission agents doing business in Bombay. Their present suit is to recover from the defendant Rs. 15.000 and odd due at the foot of the agency account. The transaction between the parties started in 1938 and up to November, 1941, the account is contendd to be adjusted because no disputes were raised. There were certain outstanding transactions at that time including some for April/May 1942 settlement. When the plaintiffs demanded payment the defendant replied that after the outstanding transactions were closed and the amount ascertained he would pay or receive as the case may be, and in the meanwhile the plaintiffs need not have any apprehensions about the balance shown to be outstanding against the defendant. The plaintiffs waited till the due date in April and thereafter sent their letter dated May 1, 1942, de...
Emperor Vs. Mahadev Mahalu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR921
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the accused for withholding sugar from sale--contrary to the Defence of India Rules.2. Under Rule 81(2) (a) of the Defence of India Rules, the Central Government or the Provincial Government may make rules for regulating or prohibiting, amongst other things, the distribution, disposal or consumption of articles or things of any description whatsoever and in particular prohibiting the withholding from sale, either generally or to specified persons or classes of persons, of articles or things kept for sale. Under that rule, Government on June 10, 1942, ordered that sugar, for which the Government of India had fixed maximum wholesale prices under the Notification mentioned, should not be sold wholesale or retail at any place in the City of Bombay at prices higher than those mentioned. The prices were mostly concerned with sales wholesale, different prices being fixed for a Bengal maund of 82 2/7 pounds in r...
Eknath Parsu Gavali Vs. Tuka Pandu Metkari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom146; (1943)45BOMLR211
Macklin, J.1. The principal question arising in this second appeal is whether in a suit for rent upon a rent-note without any prayer for possession it is open to a defendant-tenant to plead under Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act that the plaintiff was not an owner of the property but was merely a mortgagee by reason of a transaction of sale which was in reality a mortgage. Both the Courts below have held that this can be done, and they have found as a fact that the transaction pleaded was a mortgage and have allowed redemption on payment of the amount found due on taking accounts. The plaintiff bought the property from defendant No. 2 in 1933. The defendant says that in effect he remained in possession after the sale. However that may be, it is not disputed that in July, 1935, defendant No. 2 and also defendant No. 1 executed a rent-note in favour of the plaintiff for nine months at a rent of Rs. 40 together with one hundred mangoes, and in 1936 this arrangement wa...
Shivchandrai Jhunjhunwalla Vs. Mussamat Panno Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom197; (1943)45BOMLR392
Kania, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award made by the umpire, on a reference to him, in respect of a transaction in cotton made under the rules of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. In the petition three grounds are put forth to set aside the award. The first is that the reference to arbitration was beyond the period of limitation. Secondly, that without the consent of the parties neither the Chairman of the Association nor the umpire had jurisdiction to extend time for the umpire to make his award. Lastly, that the respondent not having obtained representation to the estate of her husband was not entitled to conduct arbitration proceedings or refer the disputes to arbitration and was not entitled to apply to this Court for a decree in terms of the award.2. In support of the first contention it is alleged in the petition that the contract was in respect of May, 1938, settlement of which the due date was May 25, 1938. The application for a reference should be made within...
Sitaram Vinayak Hasabnis Vs. Narayan Shankarrao Hasabnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom216; (1943)45BOMLR424
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for the partition and separate possession of a share amounting to eight annas and ten and half pies in some properties known as the Shankar Khar and Shankar Wadi, and also for a declaration of their right to receive a similar share in half the revenues of the village of Sape. They also sued for an account of the recoveries made by defendant No. 1, who admittedly has been in possession of these properties; and by a purshis they dated their claim to an account from the year 1927. They have been given a preliminary decree for partition of the Shankar Wadi and Shankar Khar and also' a declaration of their right to receive the assessment claimed of the village of Sape, and the preliminary decree ordered accounts to be taken of the plaintiffs' share in the income received by the defendants from the year 1927. The Commissioner found a sum of Rs. 6,139-0-1 1/2 to be due to the plaintiffs on accounts, and by a final decree that sum was ordered to be paid by the...
Dadiba P. Arsiwalla Vs. Thakuji Ramji Gaekwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom19; (1942)44BOMLR865
Kania, J.This application for a stay of the suit is made under Section 73 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (Bom. XXVIII of 1939). This suit was filed by the plaintiff in 1941 and as the defendant contended that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, according to the practice of our Court, the question of ascertaining his income from agricultural and non-agricultural sources for three years prior to the date of the suit was referred to the Commissioner, on May 19, 1941. Seventeen months have elapsed but the report has not yet been made. I am told that while the evidence was going on before the Commissioner, the defendant on June 2, 1942, made an application to the Debt Adjustment Board for Khed taluka appointed by the Provincial Government by Notifications Nos. 3791 and 3791-A dated December 23, 1941. He thereafter applied to the Commissioner for stay of proceedings, and as this was the first application made under the Act, the...
Chandulal Vadilal Vs. Government of the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom138; (1943)45BOMLR197
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs' case is that in 1933 the Collector fixed assessment on the plaintiffs' land at the standard rate of Rs. 200 per acre commencing from the year 1925-26, and in December, 1933, he issued notices to the plaintiffs demanding payment in accordance with the assessment. The plaintiffs alleged that the assessment was illegal, and consequently the notices to pay were also illegal, and they proposed to file a suit against the Secretary of State for a declaration to that effect; On January 22, 1934, they gave a notice, which was intended to comply with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and which set out in detail the plaintiffs' case. In paragraph 22 it alleged that the order of the Collector fixing the assessment deserves to be declared a nullity, and the plaintiffs therefore bring the suit for this declaration and also for the refund of any amount that the Collector will levy from the plaintiffs. Then in paragraph 23 it is stated as f...
Ambalal Sankaleshwar Oza Vs. Punjabhai Trikamlal Pandya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom129; (1943)45BOMLR203
Divatia, J.1. This is a revisional application against an order of the lower Court that the petitioner should refund the costs which he had recovered from the opponent in pursuance of an order made in certain claim proceedings under O. XXI, Rule 58, of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts are shortly these :-The petitioner had obtained a decree against one Jivanlal and in execution he attached certain lands belonging to the judgment-debtor. The opponent applied for raising the attachment. The application was dismissed with costs on the ground that the opponent was not in possession of the property. Thereafter the petitioner recovered the costs of those proceedings from the opponent. The opponent then filed a suit under O. XXI, Rule 63, for a declaration that the suit property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the petitioner's decree. The matter came to this Court in second appeal, and it was held that the opponent was entitled to a declaration. that the suit property...
Yeshvant Shankar Dunakhe Vs. Pyaraji Nurji Tamboli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom145; (1943)45BOMLR208
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against a decree passed in the plaintiff's favour declaring that the suit property was not liable to attachment and sale in the execution proceedings started by defendant No. 1. The facts are shortly these :-Defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on November 26, 1934. The plaintiff then sued for specific performance of the agreement and obtained a decree, in pursuance of which a sale-deed was executed in his favour through the Court on March 28, 1939, In the meanwhile defendant No. 1, in execution of a decree obtained by him against defendant No. 2, had attached the suit property on September 13, 1936. The question was whether the plaintiff got a good title by virtue of his sale-deed in spite of the property being attached before the sale-deed was passed through Court. The lower appellate Court has held, relying on the decisions in Basappa v. Hanmappa : AIR1939Bom492 and Madan v. Rebati, (1915) 23 C.L.J. 115 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »