Mumbai Court November 1944 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Shankar Ganpat Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR654
Lokur, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Poona under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The accused Shankar alias Baban Pawar was a friend of the deceased Vishnu, who Was living in the house of Babu Kale in Shukrawar Peth, Poona City. Vishnu and Babu Kale went to the toddy shop at about 8-30 p.m. on the night of May 21, 1944, and thence they proceeded to the liquor shop at about 9 or 9.15 p.m. They met the accused there, and Vishnu asked him to give some drink to him and his friend Babu at his cost. The accused said that he had no money, and called them some bad names. This was followed by an exchange of abuses between them, and Vishnu lost his temper and struck the accused with his chappal on his face. The accused retaliated by giving a slap on Vishnu's face. In the meantime witness Gulam Mahomed came out of the liquor shop and separated them. He took the accused away in the direction of the lamp post to the north, and, when they had gone...
Tag this Judgment!Kallawa Shidlingappa Angadi Vs. Parappa Sankappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR821
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for a declaration that the suit properties were not liable for satisfaction of the decree passed in the defendant's favour in suit No. 77 of 1928 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding against the suit properties in execution of the decree. The facts which led to the litigation are shortly these. There were three brothers Bashetteppa, Chinnappa and Shidlingappa. The last one is dead and his widow is the defendant. The three brothers formed a joint Hindu family. On March 3, 1928, the defendant filed an application in the nature of a suit to take a decree in terms of a private award between herself and the two brothers of her husband. In the award it was directed that the plaintiff therein was entitled to receive Rs. 66 per year as her maintenance from the two brothers and the amount of maintenance was fixed upon three specified family lands on which a charge was created for the same. A decree wa...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Laxman Bharmaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR660
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the petitioner's conviction under Section 134 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 100 by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay. The petitioner is. one of the directors of the India Patron Bank, Ltd., which is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, its main business being to sell what are called 'Patron Bonds', to invest moneys realised by the sale of those bonds and to take steps to carry out the terms of the scheme of those bonds. Being a private limited company, it cannot issue an invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares or debentures, and according to Section 2(1), Clause (13)(c), of the Indian Companies Act, if it issues such invitation to the public, it ceases to be a private company and becomes a public company liable to fulfil the obligations imposed upon a public company by the Act and the rules. One of such obligations, from which a private limi...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram Vs. Madan Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR612
Russell, J.1. The point for decision on this appeal from the High Court at Allahabad is short, but not free from difficulty. The relevant facts which gave rise to it must first be stated.2. One Seth Kashi Nath obtained a decree (in a Suit No. 42 of 1930) against the present respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6, and one Lala Sagarmal. Lala Sagarmal is dead, and his sons, the present respondents Nos. 4 and 5, were substituted for him on the record in the present suit. Respondent No. 6 has been declared insolvent and the Official Receiver, Algiers, has also been brought on the record in the present suit. For convenience the original defendants to suit No. 42 of 1930 or those representing their interests from time to time will all be included in the words the debtors.3. Seth Kashi Nath having obtained his decree applied to attach certain immovable property as being the property of the debtors and liable to be sold in execution of the decree. He was met by an objection filed on behalf of the present...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Vs. Sabapathi Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR642
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated November 7, 1941, which reversed the appellate judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, dated November 21, 1938 (which had affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Sankaridrug at Salem), and decreed the respondents' suit to recover immoveable property forming part of the estate of one Annusami Filial2. Annusami Pillai died in 1894, without issue, leaving him surviving two widows, namely, the senior Akilandammal, who died in 1899, and the junior Sundarammal, who died in April, 1934. The present suit was filed by Subbaraya Pillai, as nearest reversioner of Annusami, at the time of Sundarammal's death, against the present appellants, who claimed to retain possession of the properties under a registered deed of gift dated December 25, 1899, executed a few days after the death of Akilandammal by Sundarammal in favour of her elder b...
Tag this Judgment!A.W. Mears Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR981
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this case, A.W. Mears, was in April, 1943, a Captain holding the temporary rank of Major in the Royal Engineers, and was attached to No. 1 Works Service (E. & M.) Group I. E. In October, 1943, he was charged with four offences under the Army Act. The charges, without the particulars which are not material to this judgment, were as follows:1st Charge, A.A. Section 17.- When on active service, when concerned in the care of public property, fraudulently misapplying the same.2nd Charge, A.A. Section 40.- alternative to 1st charge.- When on active service, neglected to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.3rd Charge, A.A. Section 17.- When on active service, when concerned in the care of regimental property, fraudulently misapplying the same.4th Charge, A.A. Section 40.- alternative to 3rd charge.- When on active service neglected to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.The appellant was ordered to be tried by a Field...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Appa Bhagat Vs. Sitaram Hanumandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR441
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Assistant Judge of Poona in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1942 confirming the order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona restoring to file insolvency petition No. 45 of 1938 which had been dismissed for default. The facts of this case are these:2. Some four creditors filed a petition in insolvency on May 25, 1938, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona against the present applicant who is one of the owners of the shop going by the name of Bhujangrao Sadashiv Bhagat The petition remained pending for over three years, and on September 15, 1941. the pleaders for the petitioners stated by exhibits 103 and 104 that they had no directions to continue the proceedings. But on the very next day, i.e. on September 16, 1941, two other creditors shops, viz. Laxminarayan Sitaram Shop and Rambhagat Paichandas Shop applied under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to be su...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Nanshah Modi Vs. Bachu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom481; (1945)47BOMLR460
Lokur, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Macklin, and the facts out of which it arises are not now in dispute. The father of defendant No. 2 filed against defendant No. 1 a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad to recover Rs. 5,000 and applied for attachment before judgment of defendant No. l's share in the houses in suit. Defendant No. 1, however, put in a purshis that he was not going to sell or encumber the said property and that he would not do so. Thereupon the property was not attached and the suit ended in a decree in favour of defendant No. 2's father and was confirmed in appeal by the High Court on April 8, 1937. Defendant No. 1 borrowed some amounts for that litigation from the plaintiff, who is his cousin, and within five days after dismissal of the appeal by the High Court he agreed to sell his share in the property in the suit to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,100 due to him in respect of the advances already made...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikhushroo Tantra Vs. Meherbai Tantra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR819
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, against the decision of Mr. Justice N.J. Wadia declaring that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is dissolved and granting a divorce to the plaintiff under Section 35 of the Act.2. The plaintiff was married to the defendant in November 1922 and they lived together as husband and wife in various places till December 24, 1936. On that day they quarrelled and the defendant left the house with his kit, evidently with no intention of returning to her. On January 1, 1937, the plaintiff had to leave the flat which had been hired by her husband and she went to live in another place rented by her brother. The defendant evidently felt the inconvenience of getting his meals and so he went to the plaintiff's residence in June 1937 to find out whether she was prepared to give him food for payment. The plaintiff, after consulting her brother, agreed to the proposal, hoping that it would brin...
Tag this Judgment!Ghella Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR204
Kania, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The relevant facts are briefly these : The firm of Messrs. Ghella Dayal, consisting of three partners, carried on business in and prior to Samvat Year 1995. A partnership deed, defining the shares of the individual partners, dated October 20, 1932, is in the record. That shows that Haridas Ghella Dayal had a share of six annas three pies in a rupee, Gokuldas Jivraj had a share of six annas three pies in a rupee, and Karsondas Premji, as the manager of an undivided Hindu family, was entitled to a share of three annas six pies in a rupee. The partnership deed further recites that a shop rented in the name of Haridas Ghella Dayal from Ashad Samvat Year 1960 (over forty years ago) at the Ghadial Gaily in the Mulji Jetha Market was used by the partnership for its business in piecegoods, and the rent of the shop was to be paid by the partnership. On October 30, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »