Mumbai Court December 1944 Judgments
Governmment of Bombay Vs. Inchya Fernandez
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom277; (1945)47BOMLR363
Divatia, J.1. This an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against the order of Chagla J. acquitting the two accused on the unanimous verdict of not guilty by the jury. The charge against the accused was that on August 26, 1943, they committed the murder of one Mahadeo Khotu and aided and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence. The prosecution relied on the evidence of one eye-witness Shankar and of three other persons to whom the deceased was alleged to have said that accused No. 1 had stabbed him. There was also the evidence of one Santan to whom, it was alleged, accused No. 1 had confessed having stabbed the deceased on the night of the murder. The prosecution also relied on certain circumstances, viz. human blood stains having been found on the clothes of the two accused, the knife with which the crime was alleged to have been committed being found by the police on account of a statement alleged to have been made by accused No. 1, and a pair of shoes...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhod Mathurdas Vs. Kanchanlal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom542; (1945)47BOMLR829
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. On March 10, 1939, one Hiralal obtained a preliminary mortgage decree against the appellant Ranchhod and another, and the decree was made final on October 28, 1942, for the recovery of Rs. 5,250 and costs by sale of the mortgaged property. Subsequently the decree was assigned by the decree-holder Hiralal to respondent No. 1, Kanchanlal, by a registered sale-deed, dated August 20, 1942. Kanchanlal then presented this darkhast to recover Rs. 6,674 due under the decree by the sale of the mortgaged property in the hands of the appellant. The appellant resisted the darkhast on the ground that the assignee was not entitled to execute the decree as he was only a benamidar for him. The appellant alleged that he had got the decree adjusted; with the original decree-holder Hiralal for Rs. 5,000, that as he had no money to pay the amount in cash to Hiralal, he requested respondent No. 1, who is his wife's cousin, to advance Rs. 5,000 as...
Tag this Judgment!Marudanayagam Pillai Vs. Manickavasakam Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR617
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated September 24, 1941, which, on appeal, modified the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram dated February 15, 1939.2. The question in the appeal is whether a sale of immovable property, including land in the village of Tiruvali, made in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the respondent against the appellant's predecessor is bad as regards the said land and should be so far set aside under Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil (Procedure, 1908, on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale3. The said mortgage was executed on January 26, 1925, by one Srirangathammal in respect of land in three villages, including that of Tiruvali, to secure the repayment within one year of Rs. 36,000, with interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum. The mortgagor was the widow of the last male proprietor of the estate, h...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Bannerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR985
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. These two appeals may be disposed of together. The appellant, Bannerjee, was in December, 1942, officiating Goods and Yard Supervisor at Sealdah, which is the Calcutta terminus of the Bengal-Assam Railway, and the appellant Bhattacharjee was at that time Shed Inspector at Sealdah. Bannerjee was then holding an Emergency Commission as a Second Lieutenant and Bhattacharjee had been made a Warrant Officer. They were charged under Section 161 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with having received from Dud Nath Pandey (P.W. 2) on December 31, 1942, the sum of Rs. 250 as a motive or reward for allotting to the firm on whose behalf Pandey represented himself to be acting, a wagon for the transportation of bales of cloth from Sealdah to Kisenganj. They were convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Purganas, and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, and in default of payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Harischandra Khunderrao Kothare Vs. A.B. Craig
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom465; (1945)47BOMLR465
Kania, J.1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff, who is a solicitor, for damages for breach of an alleged contract of employment by the G.I.P. Railway Employees Mutual Benefit Fund Society. The plaintiff alleges that the society had agreed to employ him on the terms mentioned in para. 4 of the plaint. That society is not registered. Two persons are made party defendants and are sued on behalf of themselves and all other members of the said society. When the suit was filed leave was obtained under Order I, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. At that time the prayers were only for a decree against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 90,000 and for costs. The defendants thereafter took out a summons to revoke the leave granted ex parte. That summons came for argument before Chagla J. The judgment on that summons is reported in (1942) 44 Born. L.R. 251. The learned Judge considered that on the averments in the plaint the prayer was for a decree against all individuals of the society personally...
Tag this Judgment!institute of Radio Technology Vs. Pandurang Baburao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR825
Divatia, J.1. These are three applications in revision against the judgments of the Small Cause Court Judge at Bombay. They arise out of three applications for summons registered as suits under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for eviction of the three defendants, the present petitioners, who were the plaintiffs' tenants. The case for the plaintiffs was that the tenant in each case occupied one block in a building at Dadar belonging to them. The plaintiffs were living and also doing their business near the dock area in Bombay. On account of the explosion which occurred in April last, the property, which they were occupying, was destroyed with the result that they were rendered homeless and a friend of their family accommodated them temporarily. They, therefore, wished to occupy a part of their own premises at Dadar. The first plaintiff, who was an old man, was suffering from cancer, and wanted rooms with good light and air. He, therefore, selected four blocks on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Soonderdas Thakersey Vs. Bai Laxmibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR934
Chagla, J.1. In and prior to the year 1923 plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 with one Raghavji Khimji were carrying on business in partnership in the name of Messrs. Jetha Mulji & Co. Plaintiff No. 4, who is the brother of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and who was then a minor, was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. It is now admitted that this partnership out of its assets and funds Purchased fifty shares of the New Baroda Mills Company, Limited, and twenty-five shares1 of the Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Company, Limited. These shares stood in the name of Raghavji Khimji. In 1923 plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed a suit in this Court, being Suit No. 4196 of 1923, for the dissolution of that partnership. A decree was passed in that suit on February 6, 1931. The only provision of that decree with which we are concerned is that that decree declared that plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the owners of the assets, outstandings, claims and books of account of the firm of Jetha Mulji & Co. After the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Ambalal Khora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR621
Simonds, J.1. This appeal, which is from a judgment dated May 8, 1941, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arises out of a dispute between the appellant, the Secretary of State for India as representing the Government of Bihar and Orissa and also the East Indian Railway Administration, and the respondents, the owners of a colliery known as the Khas Jheria Colliery, in regard to the compensation payable by the former to the latter for coal, the working of which was prevented or restricted under the Land Acquisition (Mines) Act (No. XVIII of 1885), which will be referred to as ' the Act of 1885.'2. In the long drawn out litigation between the parties a number of questions have teen raised which are no longer at issue. The single question now remaining for decision depends on the construction of an agreement made on June 11, 1913, between the East Indian Railway Company and the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, by which the rights of the parties in respect of the working of c...
Tag this Judgment!George Bell Vs. the Royal Western India Turf Club, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR916
Blagden, J.1. After briefly summarising the pleadings the judgment proceeded: It is to be observed that the plaint does not allege that the tribunal was improperly constituted by reason of no adequate or proper notice having been given to those who were entitled to attend and take part in its decision. Where a committee or other body is empowered to act by a certain number of its members as a quorum, it is well established that there is no quorum, and the proceedings of the meeting are invalid, unless notice of the meeting is given to all the members of that committee or other body-a 'quorum' in fact means a given number of individuals out of the whole body, all of whom have had notice of the meeting, who have attended the meeting. This at least is the case in the absence of any rule to the contrary, and it is customary for social clubs and similar bodies to provide in their rules that the accidental omission to give notice of any particular meeting shall not of itself invalidate its p...
Tag this Judgment!Nusserwanji Icchaporia Vs. Gulcher Munshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR911
Coyajee, J.1. The questions arising on this originating summons are to be answered in the following circumstances and facts of the case. The testatrix Bai Hirabai Nusserwanji Motisha died in Bombay on April 10, 1934, leaving a will in the Gujarati language dated April 9, 1934. After giving and setting out certain legacies the testatrix by Clause 9 of her will states as follows:If the 'legacies' which I have (directed to be) given by this my 'will' cannot be given for any reason whatever, as to the amounts of those legacies and all my remaining punji (and) property (which I may not have left as 'Bakshis' (gift) to anyone under this will), all that (which I shall hereafter describe in this will as my 'remaining punji') my executors shall divide into four equal parts, and they shall give one such equal part to the persons mentioned below.(a) To (my) sister Alamai Dhunjishaw Bhandara,(b) To (my) brother Burjorji Nusserwanji Motisha,(e) To (my) brother Hormusji Nusserwanji Motisha,(d) To Pi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »