Mumbai Court December 1944 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.
Hirji Laxmidas Vs. Francis Fernandez
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom352; (1945)47BOMLR294
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was commenced in the Small Cause Court at Bombay, and is brought by the plaintiffs, who are the landlords, against defendant No. 1, who is the tenant, to eject him from 31-D Matarpakhdi, Mazgaon, Bombay, held by him under a monthly tenancy at a rent of Rs. 125 per month. The tenancy is alleged to have been terminated by notice dated April 29, 1943. The defence of defendant No, 1 is to plead the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, which I will refer to as 'the 1944 Act', and to rely on the fact that before this Act came into operation the plaintiffs had applied to the Controller for a certificate under the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, (which I will refer to as 'the 1942 Order'), which was refused. Such refusal, it is said, is binding upon the plaintiffs under Section 15 of the 1944 Act.2. In reply the plaintiffs allege that Part II of the 1944 Act is ultra vires and void for the reasons to which I will prese...
Kishori Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR625
Goddard, J.1. On October 7, 1930, the appellant was convicted before the Special Tribunal set up under Ordinance III of 1930 of certain offences, including those of waging war against the King, contrary to Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and of murder, contrary to Section 302. For these offences he was sentenced to transportation for life, which is the only sentence, other than death, which can be awarded for these two crimes. After conviction he was imprisoned in the Central Jail at Multan and in January, 1936, was transferred to the Central Jail at Lahore. On August 29, 1932, the Home Secretary to the Government of the Punjab wrote to the Inspector-General of Prisons, saying that the Governor in Council agreed that the appellant, on the score of his crime, was unsuitable for transportation to the Andamans, adding that 'he cannot be deported as a terrorist as the Government of India has not so far addressed any communication authorising the Punjab Government to deport terrorists...
The Government of Bombay Vs. Dashrath Ramnivas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom265; (1945)47BOMLR145
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against an order of acquittal and discharge passed by Sen J. in a Sessions trial agreeing with the majority verdict of not guilty by the jury. The charge against the accused was that he committed the murder of a Police Constable, Yeshwant Bhikaji, on February 5, 1943, at about 10 p.m. by stabbing him with a knife on Lakshmi Napoo Road at Matunga in Bombay. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of two alleged eye-witnesses, one person having seen the accused running away with a knife in his hand soon after the offence was alleged to have been committed, the accused having washed his blood-stained hands on the same night in the room of witness Ambikabai and having concealed the knife in the compound of the Cutchi Visha Hall situated in Laxmi Narayan Lane which the accused was alleged to have entered after committing the offence. The prosecution also relied upon a statement of an incriminating nature made by th...
Ramchandra Jivaji Vs. Laxman Shrinivas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR274
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated March 17, 1937 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which reversed a decree dated April 23, 1932, of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The question for the determination in the appeal is whether the plaintiff's (appellant's) suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties is barred by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, (Act No. IX of 1908). This article prescribes a period of 'three years' for a suit 'to cancel or set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for' and time begins to run 'when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to him.3. The table given below shows the relationship of the parties to the suit who are members of a Hindu family descended from one Balaji Kanago :Balaji Rao, surnamed Kanago, of Pachhapur.|.--------------------------------------------.| |Annaji I Ramachandra ...
K.P. Dalal Vs. R.S. Jamadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom478; (1945)47BOMLR388
Divatia, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of Mr. Lalkaka, Small Cause Court Judge at Bombay. The plaintiff had filed an application which was registered as suit No. 170 of 1944 for ejectment against the opponent. According to the plaintiff the opponent was his sub-tenant of certain premises situated at Gowalia Tank Road, and he wanted possession of the premises for his own use. The suit first came up for hearing before Mr. Lalkaka on January 27 last. The plaintiff's case is that it was suggested by the opponent's counsel on that day that the learned Judge should inspect the premises on February 9 and accordingly the learned Judge saw the premises and the hearing of the suit was adjourned to February 11. On that day the parties agreed that the matters in dispute between them should be decided by the learned Judge as an arbitrator; Mr. Lalkaka suggested that he would pass a decree in the petitioner's favour if the latter found for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›