Mumbai Court January 1944 Judgments
Bai Kevli Vs. Dalsukhram Sakarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom178; (1944)46BOMLR908
Sen, J. 1. The appellant in both these appeals is Bai Kevli, widow of PopatlalSakhalchand,, the original defendant in a suit in which the principal question that arose for consideration was the construction of a will dated June 27, 1934, made by her husband Popatlal Sakhalchand who had died on September 16, 1934. The plaintiffs wereSakarchand, the brother of Popatlal, and his three sons.2. The will first gives the description of the properties belonging to the testator which are stated to be of his own exclusive ownership. The properties consist of one house in Ahmedabad, the outstandings recoverable from his debtors, ornaments, utensils and an insurance policy of Rs. 2,000. Then occur these words in paragraph 5 of the will :-I am the owner (malik) of the said properties so long as I live. Of these properties I may eat, spend or do whatever I like with them during my lifetime. But in case of my death, I appoint or nominate my wife Bai Kevli as full and absolute owner (Kul swatantra mal...
Tag this Judgment!Parvatibai Gopal Dhamdhere Vs. Maruti Luxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom69; (1944)46BOMLR704
Sen, J.1. The appellant, Parvatibai kom Gopal Dhamdhere, was defendant No. 1 in a suit which was brought by Jaibai kom Patluji in order to avoid the effect of a decree obtained by Parvatibai in a suit instituted by her mother Kashibai, Suit No. 449 of 1916, for redemption of a possessory mortgage of 1872 in respect of the suit property which had originally belonged to Kashibai's father Babaji Ramji. Kashibai died duration the pendency of the suit and her daughter, defendant No. 1, was on application made by her brought on record as Kashibai's legal representative. The original mortgagee was Bahirji Balaji after whose death his son Patluji also died, leaving two widows Jaibai, the plaintiff, and Laxmibai. Jaibai is the daughter of Rahibai, Kashibai's sister, Rahibai being also a daughter of the mortgagor Babaji. In Suit No. 449 of 1916 the defendants were Jaibai, Laxmibai and two other parties named Kadams to whom; Laxmibai was alleged to have sold her half share in the mortgagee's righ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Behram Sheriar Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR481
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The appellant is one of the proprietors of a bakery called the Rising Sun Bakery On January 13, 1943, the bakery was raided by the police. A large number of cakes of various sizes, biscuits and sweetmeats were found on the premises. There were 295 cakes weighing 1/2 lb, each, 180 cakes weighing 1/4 lb. each, 73 dozen small cakes weighing 14 to a lb., 190 dozen cakes weighing 20 to a lb. and some biscuits and sweetmeats. The police in the presence of panchas attached one article of each variety on suspicion that the articles contained wheat or wheat products. By Notification No. 370 issued by the Government of Bombay on January 26, 1942, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, they had directed that no person within the limits of the City of Bombay should from the date of that Notification use wheat flour or any wheat product for the preparation of cakes, pastry or any kind of sweetmeats except under a license ...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhu Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR838
Macmillan, J.1. At the conclusion of the arguments in this case on January 26, 1944, their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed. They now state their reasons for this advice.2. On August 15, 1942, the Sessions Judge of Rohtak in British India found the appellant guilty on a charge of murdering his uncle Nanhu. The appellant was sentenced to death and on appeal to the High Court of Lahore the 'conviction and the sentence were confirmed. On a petition to His Majesty in Council special leave to appeal in forma pauperis was granted to the appellant.3. The validity of the conviction was challenged before their Lordships on two grounds, viz. (1) that the appellant had been illegally arrested ; and (2) that the Court which tried him had no jurisdiction to do so.1. For the appreciation of this point a short narrative of the facts is necessary. The appellant is not a British subject, but is a native of the State of Jind in which he resided. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom255; (1944)46BOMLR459
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order made by the First Class Magistrate, Jalgaon City, acquitting the accused Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao. The accused had been charged under Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, for having on January 26, 1943, made, published and distributed copies of a leaflet which contained prejudicial reports within the meaning of Rule 34(7) read with Rule 34(6)(e) and (g) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.2. The accused admitted having published and distributed copies of the leaflet, but contended that in doing so he had committed no offence. He alleged that he had published the leaflet on behalf of the Hindi Communist Party which had been making efforts to check the activities of Fifth Columnists in the country, to dissuade people from committing acts of sabotage, to prevent antisocial activities such as hoarding of food-grains, and to urge the people to take part in the defence of the country against the Japan...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Laxman Ganesh Raste
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom39; (1944)46BOMLR703
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This pleader over six years ago committed a grave breach of professional conduct and his sanad was taken away and cancelled by this Court. He has now filed a petition asking us to restore to him that sanad. By his petition he not only shows that he is very repentant for what he did ; but he promises to regulate his conduct in future along strictly professional lines.2. Mr. Raste has in fact been removed from practice for more than six years ; and, in our judgment, neither the interests of justice nor the public interest nor the interests of the profession demand that clemency should be withheld from him.3. A question, however, arises as to the proper form of order which is to be made in cases of this character in which an order for the removal from practice has been made and the sanad has been delivered up and cancelled in the office of this High Court. We accordingly adjourn this matter in order that counsel may consider the proper form of order which we oug...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Budhabhai Sakarbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom290; (1944)46BOMLR477
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order of the Stipendiary First Class Magistrate, Ahmedabad, acquitting the accused Budhabhai Sakarbhai. The accused had been prosecuted by the Chief Officer of the Ahmedabad Municipality under Section 15(1)(c)(ii) of the Bombay Town Planning Act (Bom. 1 of 1915) for having put up a corrugated iron screen on the north-western side of his plot No. 54814 in the Ellis Bridge Town Planning scheme area without the previous permission of the Municipality2. Section 15, Sub-section (1), Clause (a), of the Bombay Town Planning Act, provides that when a local authority has published a declaration of intention to make a scheme, no person shall within the area included in the scheme erect or proceed with any building or work unless he has applied for and obtained the necessary permission from the local authority.3. It is not disputed that the accused put up the corrugated iron screen without obtaining the permission of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Bhaushet Vs. Bhiku Mahadeoshet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom55; (1944)46BOMLR699
1. The question of Hindu law arising in this appeal is whether a concubine who was never married but was living as a permanently kept mistress of another can inherit the property of her sonless father either to the exclusion of or along with his married daughter. The main facts are not now in dispute. The property in dispute belonged to one Vithling Jangarni who died in 1896 leaving a widow Sakhu and two daughters Bayo and Kushi. On the death of Vithling his widow Sakhu succeeded to his property. She mortgaged it with possession to one Rangu. On Rangu's death his son Shivram assigned the mortgage to one Mahadev in 1911. The defendants are the sons of the said Mahadev. Sakhu died in 1932 and her married daughter Bayo-sold the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property to defendant No. 1 Bhiku in 1935. Sakhu's younger daughter Kushi was not married, but was living with one Vishnu Bapuji Pingle as his permanently kept mistress. She had a son by him by name Balkrishna. After her death ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhodlalji Goswami Vs. Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR696
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Joint Judge of Ahmeda-bad. The claimant Goswami Ranchhodlalji was the owner of a piece of land let out to charcoal dealers and the Municipality required upwards of 590 square yards of it for road widening. Accordingly the requisite notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was duly issued on July 7, 1936, by publication in the ' Bombay Government Gazette,' The next step was this : on or about May 31, 1938, a notice under Section 9 of the Act was sent by registered post to the claimant so that he could make his claim for compensation. The claimant is a religious head and guru and he does not deal himself with business affairs : but has a manager for that purpose. The notice, sent to the claimant by registered post was addressed to him at his residence ; where the receipt for it was signed by his clerk, who passed on the notice to the claimant's manager. In the circumstances to which I shall presently r...
Tag this Judgment!Motor House Gujarat, Ld. Vs. Natvarlal Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom54; (1944)46BOMLR693
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. These two applications in revision arise out of an order, parsed by the Small Cause Court Judge, Ahmedabad, in. Small Cause SuitsNote. 1673 of 1942 and 4085 of 1941. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The plaintiffs, who were the owners of a certain piece of land, leased it to the defendant on October 21, 1937, for a period of ten years on a rental of Rs. 2,004 a year, that is, on a monthly rental of Rs. 167 for the purpose of constructing motor garages and showrooms. One of the terms of the lease was that the Municipal and other professional taxes should be paid by the defendant tenant. As the Urban Immoveable 'Property Tax Act was not in force in 1937, naturally nothing was said in the lease regarding the payment of that, tax. That tax was imposed-by the Bombay Finance (Amendment) Act IV of 1939 which came into operation on March 30, 1939. Thereupon certain dispute arose between the parties as regards the question of the liability for payment of the tax.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »