Mumbai Court July 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.
Mahadeo Krishna Parkar Vs. the Mamlatdar of Alibag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom200; (1944)46BOMLR375
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Thana, and it raises a question under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A reference was made under that section to the District Court of Thana. The Land Acquisition Officer, who was the Mamlatdar of Alibag, considered; the application for reference to be time-barred, but the Collector decided to make a reference to the District Court with an expression of opinion that the application was time-barred and that the point should be left for the decision of the Court. In so acting I think the Collector was wrong. It was for him to decide in the first instance whether the case fell within the terms of Section 18, and if he thought it did not, he should have declined to make a reference. The learned Assistant Judge raised an issue whether the application for reference was barred by limitation under Section 18, Sub-section (2), of the Land Acquisition Act, and he answered that issue in the affirm...
Emperor Vs. Pandu Kusha Mandavkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR902
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case accused, who are appealing, and certain other accused were prosecuted for various offences, including an offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. arson, and they were tried by the Sessions Judge of Thana with a jury. Apparently the learned Judge and the counsel in the case were all under the impression that the Enhancement of Penalties Ordinance had been applied to Kolaba District and under that Ordinance an offence under Section 436 might be punished with death. Accordingly, under the proviso to Section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Judge empanelled a jury of nine persons. In the result three of the accused were acquitted of all offences and the present appellants were found guilty by a majority of six to three of an offence under Section 120B, but were acquitted of the offence under Section 436.2. It now appears that the Enhancement of Penalties Ordinance has not been applied to Kolaba, and that being so, there ...
Puttappa Kariyappa Huchappa Bijjur Vs. Banappa Fakirappa Shiggauv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom344; (1944)46BOMLR599
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that certain transactions consisting of three mortgages made by his father in respect of which an award decree had been obtained between him and his creditor and two sale-deeds of other properties were not binding on the plaintiff as they were without legal necessity as well as for immoral and illegal consideration.2. The plaintiff was born in 1918. Some time before that, his father, who is defendant No. 4 in this case, had separated from his uncle and had got lands yielding about Rs. 1,800 per year. He had no business except cultivation of those lands. Very soon after the partition defendant No. 4 began to purchase properties out of the income of his lands and for that purpose he incurred several mortgage debts. The first debt was incurred in June, 1926, by mortgaging two of the lands, for Rs. 5,000 to defendant No. 1's father. About three months later he passed a second mortgage to the same person of other l...
The Patiala State Bank Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR207
Romer, J.1. The Patiala State Bank (the appellant in this case) is owned and controlled by the Maharajah of Patiala who constitutes the Government of that State. The head office and all the branches of the Bank are situated in the State and it does not carry on any part of its business in British India, But in the year ending March 31, 1935, the bank collected and received in British India through the hands of its agents sums representing the interest on certain Government of India securities that it had acquired in the course and for the purposes of its business. In the same year it also received in British India, through its agents there, a substantial sum of money representing the profits accruing to it in respect of the sale at a profit of various investments similarly acquired. It is not and it cannot be disputed that all these sums of money represented profits or gains of the appellant's banking business for the year in question. In these circumstances the senior Income-tax Offic...
Kedarnath Himatsingka Vs. Prabhabati Saheba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR561
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two separate but identical orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated January 23, 1939, and January 26, 1939, respectively in Civil Revision No. 563 of 1938, and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 89 of 1932, which affirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka dated August 15, 1938.2. The appellant before the Board is the Receiver appointed by a consent order of the High Court dated December 23, 1932, in Consolidated Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 89-93 of 1932, of a Ghatwali tenure known as the Hendwe Estate held by respondent No. 10, the proprietress of the said estate under the Banaili Raj, represented by respondents Nos. 1 to 9.3. Shortly stated, the main question for determination is whether the appellant has a prior right to reimburse himself from the collections of the estate in respect of certain loans advanced or raised by him to and for the estate at the express orders of the Subordinate Court and the High Court on v...
Hifzurraheman Ansarsaheb Vs. Hasansaheb Abansaheb Fulmandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom203; (1944)46BOMLR371
Macklin, J.1. These applications must be allowed. The point at issue in all of them is the same, namely, the power of the Judge holding an election enquiry under Section 15 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, to unseat a candidate on the ground that the candidate was disqualified for election by reason of Section 12 of the Act. Whether the candidates in question were or were not qualified is a matter with which we are not concerned. The Judge has held, rightly or wrongly, that Section 12 disqualified them, and he accordingly set aside the election of these persons. In doing so he purports to act under Section 15 of the Act. The unseated candidates have come in revision to this Court on the ground that the Judge has gone beyond the powers given to him by the Legislature; and if it is a fact that he has done so, then his action, though the action of a persona designata, is subject to revision by this Court.2. The Assistant Judge who heard the cases was of the opinion that Section...
The Government of the Province Vs. Limdi Darbar.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom24; (1943)45BOMLR961
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad granting some form of injunction. But as the order has apparently never been drawn up, we do not know what the injunction is which is complained of, and we are not in a position to say whether or not the order was a right one. Some form of injunction may have been necessary, but the extent of it would require consideration.2. We are told that in the mofussil there is a general practice not to draw up interlocutory orders. If such a practice exists, the sooner it is abandoned the better; it is inconsistent with Section 142 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which requires orders to be in writing. It is not enough to produce, as is done in this case, directions given by the Judge as to the order which he intends to make. The Judge should consider the exact form of order which he intends to make, and sign such order. If a party desires to appeal from an order which has not ...
Emperor Vs. Trimbak Hari Tulpule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR893
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application of a somewhat unusual character, and, in my opinion, it is entirely misconceived. The applicant is an under-trial prisoner, who is in custody in the Yeravada Jail, and he has been charged with serious offences involving violence. His complaint is that although he is an under-trial prisoner, and although he has not committed any jail offence, he is kept in fetters in a part of the prison usually reserved for prisoners sentenced to death, and he is not allowed to interview his legal adviser in the presence of his co-accused, one of the offences charged being conspiracy. He asks this Court to interfere on his behalf. His last objection seems to me to be a peculiarly idle one. If these accused persons are all telling the truth to their legal advisers, there is no reason whatever why one should be present when another is interviewing his legal adviser. Of course, if they want to agree upon a false story, collaboration would be useful. But it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›