Mumbai Court November 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.
Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Chimanlal Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR837; (1945)47BOMLR574
Atkin, J.1. Their Lordships are unable to grant this application. They have, and always would have, every consideration for an applicant who came and said that, without any fault on his part, the case had been heard ex parte; and, wherever he could Satisfy their Lordships that he could have put before them some considerations which might have affected their decision, they would no doubt be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard again ; but the present case, is a case which turns upon construction and upon construction only. The High Court, from which there was the ' appeal, after going carefully into all the arguments, adopted one construction and the Board had given a detailed judgment in which they had dealt with the points taken by the High Court and. had come to an opposite conclusion. It is not suggested that there is anything which could be said to the Board, if they did grant a further hearing, which had not been considered by the Board in giving their judgment on the...
Jaysingh Devsingh Vs. Pratapsingh Gopalsingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR83
Leonard Stone Kt., C.J.1. This appeal, which is from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik, raises a short point, but one which is not free from difficulty.2. The appeal is against the dismissal of the appellant's application for probate of the will of his daughter Lilabai.3. Lilabai was born on June 3, 1916, and the question is whether before she attained the age of eighteen on June 2, 1934, a guardian of her person or property had been appointed pursuant to the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. If so, then her will dated February 28, 1936, would be of no effect, as under Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, she would not attain her majority until twenty-one, and as a minor she would be incapable of executing a valid testamentary disposition. On the other hand, if no guardian was in fact appointed or declared, she would attain her majority at eighteen and her will would be a valid disposition of her property.4. At all material times Lilabai's only property consisted of Rs. 10...
Jaysingh Devsingh Vs. Pratapsingh Gopalsingh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom243
Stone, C.J.1. This appeal, which is from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik, raises a short point but one which is not free from difficulty. The appeal is against the dismissal of the appellant's application for probate of the will of his daughter Lilabai. Lilabai was born on 3rd June 1916, and the question is whether before she attained the age of eighteen on 2nd June 1934, a guardian of her person or property had been appointed pursuant to the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. If so, then her will dated 28th February 1936, would be of no effect, as under Section 3, Majority Act, 1875, she would not attain her majority until twenty-one, and as a minor she would be incapable of executing a valid testamentary disposition. On the other hand, if no guardian was in fact appointed or declared, she would attain her majority at eighteen and her will would be a valid disposition of her property. At all material times Lilabai's only property consisted of Rs. 10,000 payable under an insuran...
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. Sir H.P. Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom129; (1944)46BOMLR204
Macklin, J.1. This is an application in revision to interfere with the procedure of the Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Court, Bombay, who is trying an offence under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913. That offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and also with fine. The learned Magistrate is trying it in a summary manner and is not recording the evidence in full, and the prosecutor in the case contends that this procedure is illegal in view of Section 278 (2) of the Indian Companies Act of 1913. That sub-section provides that if any offence which by the Act is declared to be punishable by fine only is committed by any person, within the local limits of the High Court, it should be punishable upon summary conviction by any Presidency Magistrate. The argument is that this section limits the powers of a Magistrate as regards summary trial to offences which are punishable with fine only, in other words it restricts the powers of Presidency Magistrates and does not m...
Emperor Vs. Ayubkhan Mirsultan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom159; (1944)46BOMLR203
Blagden, J.1. Joseph's submission here is that if a girl, being over fourteen and under sixteen and in lawful custody, consents to an act of illicit intercourse with a man and is persuaded to elope with that man for that purpose no offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is committed, but it may be an offence under Section 363. This Court has already held in Emperor, v. Laxman Bala I.L.R. (1934) 59 Bom. 652 that a previous act of illicit intercourse between the kidnapper and the girl does not prevent an offence under Section 366 being committed. I respectfully agree with the dissent expressed in that judgment from Emperor v. Baijnath (1932) 33 Cr.L.J. 669. The point does not seem to be exactly covered by authorities, but I am prepared to hold that even on Mr. Joseph's supposition an offence under Section 366 is possible. The girl's consent might always be revoked, and if it were revoked force or a further seduction would be essential before an act of illicit intercour...
Nagindas Purshotamdas Patel Vs. Bajrang Lal Khemka and Rai Bahadur Mot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom187; (1944)46BOMLR345
Chagla, J.1. In this suit the defendant claimed an indemnity against the third party in respect of the decree that might be passed against him and for payment of all costs, charges and expenses in relation thereto. At the instance of the defendant, a third party notice was taken out and Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria was added as a third party to the suit. The result of the action was that the plaintiff found that he could not sustain the suit and submitted to its dismissal. A consent decree was taken at the trial by which the suit was dismissed, and no order was made as to the costs of the plaintiff's action. I might point out that the third party was a party to this compromise. In other words the third party agreed to the defendant not claiming from the plaintiff the costs of the action. Mr. Murzban Mistree appearing for the defendant has argued before me the question of costs as between the defendant and the third party.2. In the written statement filed by the third party the third pa...
Jankiram Company Vs. Chunilal Shriram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR671
Sen, J.1. This is a revision application against an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur dismissing the petitioner's application for a review of an order dismissing darkhast No. 1632 of 1936 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. His case is that he mentioned in the said darkhast that he had previously filed darkhast No. 353 of 1932 and omitted to mention therein that he had also filed a second darkhast No. 978 of 1933, and that owing to this omission the Court dismissed dar-khast No. 1622 of 1936 as being time-barred, having been filed more than three years after the decision in darkhast No. 353 of 1982. The application was opposed by the judgment-debtor on the ground that prior to the filing of the application for review the applicant had preferred an appeal against the order made in darkhast No. 1632 of 1936. Following the decision in Balling v. Devasthan Fund, Gondhale (1930) 33 Bom. L.R. 378 the lower Court has dismissed the application with costs.2. The...
Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas Vs. the Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom385; (1944)46BOMLR265
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla dated December 16, 1942. The appellant's claim is based on an agreement dated December 7, 1907, which in draft form was annexed to the memorandum and articles of association of the respondent company, which was incorporated on July 30, 1907. Mention of the agreement then in draft is to be found in Clause 6 of the memorandum of association of the respondent company, which commences as follows :The members who at present constitute, or who may hereafter constitute the firm of Messrs. Kotibhasker, Amin & Co., are hereby appointed secretaries, treasurers and agents of the company upon the terms contained in the agreement annexed to the articles of association and it is hereby expressly provided that, in consideration of the services rendered by them in promoting the company after first establishing the practicability of the industry by actually starting tentative factories, the appointment of the said firm...
Anant Baburao Kulkarni Vs. Vyasacharya Madhavacharya Ghalasasi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom264; (1944)46BOMLR525
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree for rent. The facts shortly are that the plaintiff, who is the respondent in this appeal, obtained a decree against the present appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, and six other persons for arrears of rent consisting of about Rs. 18 for three years with costs and future interest. The suit was contested by defendant No. 7, who was a minor, through his guardian. The other defendants remained absent and did not contest the suit. The decree was a joint and several decree against all the defendants. Defendant No. 7 alone filed a revisional application to the District Court against that decree as it was only open to revision by the District Judge under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1379. Pending the hearing of that application the plaintiff, who was the opponent in that application, filed an application for the withdrawal of the suit as against defendant No. 7. The District Judge gra...
Mahomed Jaffer Haji Nazaralli Devji Vs. Mahomed Janmahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom222; (1944)46BOMLR340
Kania J.1. This originating summons is taken out to obtain the Court's opinion on the following two questions : (1) whether under the provisions of the indenture of trust, dated August 1, 1908, and in the circumstances set out in the plaint the appointment of a new trustee can be validly made by some of the trustees of the said trust without the consent and concurrence of all the trustees;and (2) whether defendant No. 4 is validly appointed as a trustee of the said trust and whether he can act as such.2. The plaintiff is one of the trustees of a public charitable trust known as the Jamalbhai Hirji Charitable Trust. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the remaining trustees. In the indenture of trust it was inter alia provided as follows :.And it is hereby agreed and declared that if and so often as any of the trustees hereby appointed or any future trustees of these presents shall die or renounce the Shia Asna Ashari faith it shall be lawful for the continuing trustees or trustee for the ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »