Mumbai Court October 1943 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.
Morarji Goculdas and Co. Vs. the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR324
Thankertion, J.1. The appellants, who are a merchant firm carrying on business in Bombay, seek to recover damages from the respondents in respect of the alleged wrongful termination of their employment as managing agents of the respondent company. By judgment and decree dated October 12, 1938, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its civil appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the judgment and decree of that Court in its original civil jurisdiction, dated February 15, 1938, by which the suit of the appellants was dismissed with costs.2. The respondent company is a joint stock company carrying on business at Bombay as spinners and weavers of cotton, jute and other fibres ; the individual respondents, along with two other original defendants now deceased, were the directors of the respondent company who passed the. resolution, dated January 27, 1933, which terminated the employment of the appellants as managing agents of the respondent company.3. The respondent company was formed in 187...
Wamanlal Chhotalal Parekh Vs. the ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom131; (1944)46BOMLR145
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla dated January 29, 1943, whereby he dismissed with costs the appellant's suit for a declaration and certain ancillary relief. 2. The appellant is a shareholder in the respondent company, and sues, on behalf of himself and other shareholders of the company, not only the company but the nine personal defendants who are its directors. The appellant's complaint arises out of a transaction effected at the time of the collapse of France in May 1940 whereby the respondent-company laid out twenty-five lacs of rupees in the purchase of bullion and deposited it at a bank. The appellant says that such a transaction was ultra vires the respondent-company, and accordingly it becomes necessary to examine not only the memorandum of association of the respondent-company but also the nature of the transaction itself.3. The company was incorporated on March 27, 1919, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 ; it is a substa...
Shamaji Narayan Vs. Govind Rangacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR658
Weston, J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is agricultural land being six survey numbers, one in village Agarkhed in the Bijapur District, one in village Nandgaon in the Belgaum District, three in village Satti also in the Belgaum District, and one in village) Kupwad in the Dharwar District, Although in the view we take this litigation falls to be decided upon a comparatively narrow point, a description of the complicated facts and history; is necessary. We are indebted to Mr. Coyajee, who has argued the appeal for the appellant-plaintiff, for the very clear manner in which the facts and history have been placed before us.2. It is not now disputed that the six suit lands, which we understand are jat inam lands, certain other lands in British India, lands in Mudhol and Jamkhandi States, and inam villages in Mysore State were the ancestral property of one Vasudevacharya, who died some time before 1853 a.d. The family tree of the descendants of Vasudevacharya is as follows.3. Whet...
Shamaji Narayan Vs. Govind Rangacharya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom45
Weston J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is agricultural land being six survey numbers, one in village Agarkhed in the Bijapur District, one in village Nandgaon in the Belgaum District, three in village Satti also in the Belgaum District, and one in village Kupwad in the Dharwar District. Although in the view we take this litigation falls to be decided upon a comparatively narrow point, a description of the complicated facts and history is necessary. We are indebted to Mr. Coyajee, who has argued the appeal for the' appellant-plaintiff, for the very clear manner in which the facts and history have been placed before us. It is not now disputed that the six suit lands, which we understand are at inam lands, certain other lands in British India, lands in Mudhol and Jamkhandi States, and inam villages in Mysore State were the ancestral property of one Vasudevacharya, who died some time before 1853 A. D. The family tree of the descendants of Vasudevacharya is as follows: VASUDEVAC...
Emperor Vs. Banappa Kallappa Ajawan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR166
N.J. Wadia J.1. The five appellants in this case were charged under Sections 148, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having on September 8, 1942, been members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murderous assault on Yellappa, Basalingaya, Bhimarai and Iray a Shivaya, with having committed a riot in prosecution of this common object being armed with axes and scythes, and with having voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Yellappa and others. Accused No. 1 Banappa was also charged with having attempted to commit murder by firing a gun at Yellappa and others and with having thereby committed an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and the other accused with having committed an offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was further charged under Section 19 (e) of the Indian Arms Act for having been in possession of a gun without a license. The jury by a majority of four to one found...
Tejilal Narayandas Halwai Vs. Godubai Ramchandra Medhekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom245; (1944)46BOMLR441
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff sued in her personal capacity for possession of the property in suit partly as an owner of the property and partly on the basis of landlord and tenant on the allegation that the defendant was her tenant. The suit was resisted on the ground that no tenancy had ever existed and the defendant had been in possession of the property for more than forty years and had acquired an adverse title, but that in any event the title for the property was not with the plaintiff and that it was not open to the plaintiff to sue in her individual capacity in view of the fact that the property was entered in the City Survey Records as belonging to the Bhavani temple. The Courts below held that the tenancy was proved. That being so, it would not be open to the defendant to deny his landlord's title. But the question of title in the plaintiff was considered and it was held that the plaintiff had a title to the property and had been in possession of the land within twelve years of...
Laxman Hari Gharpure Vs. Vishnu Vishwanath Paranjpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR647
Weston, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 can be said to be agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879. These appellants at the time the darkhast was filed were all minors. They lived with their uncle Laxman, the first appellant, on whose behalf the appeal has not been pressed, and according to the evidence they formed with him a joint family owning fairly considerable agricultural lands; and it has been found by the Court below that the only income of the joint family was derived from these lands although Laxman had separate income in the shape of pension. The learned Subordinate Judge held against appellants Nos. 2 to 4 on the plea of agriculturist status on the ground that minors cannot be held to be agriculturists because they themselves do not earn their livelihood, and he relied upon a decision of this Court in Gadadhar v. Gangaram : (1931)33BOMLR825 .2. The material part of Section 2 of...
Laxman Hari Gharpure and ors. Vs. Vishnu Vishwanath Paranjpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom18
Weston, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether appellants 2, 3 and 4 can be said to be agriculturists the meaning of Section 2, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act, 1879. These appellants at the time the darkhast was filed were all minors. They lived with their uncle Laxman, appellant 1, on whose behalf the appeal has not been pressed, and according to the evidence they formed with him a joint family owning fairly considerable agricultural lands; and it has been found by the Court below that the only income of the joint family was derived from these lands although Laxman had separate income in the shape of pension. The learned Subordinate Judge held against appellants 2 to 4 on the plea of agriculturist status on the ground that minors cannot be held to be agriculturists because they themselves do not earn their livelihood, and he relied upon a decision of this Court in Gadadhar v. Gangaram ('31) 18 A.I.R. 1931 Bom. 453 The material part of Section 2, Dekkhan Agriculturists' B...
Dakor Temple Committee Vs. Shankerlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom300; (1944)46BOMLR653
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order made by the District Judge, Nadiad, in a darkhast application made to enforce two decrees, one passed in Suit No. 23 of 1880 and the other passed in Suit No. 18 of 1887. The first suit was instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code in the District Court at Ahmedabad against the sevaks or pujaris of the temple of Shri Ranchhodraiji at Dakor by some of the gors of the said temple and one M.G. Tambekar. There was a first appeal to the High Court which decided that the properties in suit were of a public, charitable and religious trust, that the sevaks were merely trustees and servants of the temple, and that they were accountable for all the properties in their hands. It directed the District Judge of Ahmedabad to take accounts, appoint a receiver, and frame a scheme for future management.(Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakshmiram Govindram I.L.R. (1887) 12 Bom. 247 .This decree was confirmed by the Privy Council (Chotalal...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›