Mumbai Court February 1944 Judgments
Mabel Head Vs. Miss Kathleen Guest
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom43; (1944)46BOMLR720
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Assistant Judge of Jal-gaon confirming a decrees made by the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Bhusawal dismissing the appellant's suit. The appellant is the widow of one Walter Thomas Head who was an employee of the G. I. P. Railway Company and who died on December 9, 1938. He was a contributor to the G. I. P. Railway Provident Fund which is governed by the Provident Funds Act, XIX of 1925. Prior to his death, he had made a declaration to the effect that out of the amount standing to his credit in the Provident Fund, Rs. 50 should be given to his wife, the plaintiff, Rs. 5,000 to defendant No. 2 who was his son, and the balance to defendant No. 1 who was his housekeeper. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that the nomination in favour of the two defendants was invalid and for an injunction to restrain them from draw-. ing the amounts. She contended that defendant No. 2 was not the son of her husband by defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimappasaheb Gireppasaheb Vs. Ramappa Balappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom85; (1944)46BOMLR725
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge, Belgaum, restoring to file a darkhast which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on March 31, 1943. The facts of this case are not in dispute.2. A Darkhast No. 184 of 1940 was filed by the respondent decree-holder in execution of a money decree that he had obtained in Civil Suit No. 347 of 1937. After the institution of the darkhast, the decreeJholder obtained an order for attachment and sale of the property in the hands of the judgment-debtor. On December 3, 1942, the Court ordered a sale proclamation to issue. Thereupon the appellant-judgment-debtor produced a certificate, exhibit 113, under Section 10 of the Watan Act issued by the District Deputy Collector, to the effect that the property was watan property and was not, therefore, liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree. This certificate was produced on March 15, 1943, and was shown to the pleader of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Easwaramurthi Goundan Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1944
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR844
Wright, J.1. The appellant, a wealthy landowner, merchant and banker with large interests in Tiruppur, where he resided, and other places in the Province of Madras, was charged along with ten other persons under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code with the offence of 'harbouring' two persons who were suspected of having committed a murder on or about March 8, 1940. The murdered man was Muthu Goundan, of Othuvillaipudur. The police formed the opinion that the murder was committed by four persons, all of them Valayans, a low tribe among the depressed and criminal classes of Madras, aided and abetted by one R.V.I. Goundan, the father-in-law of the appellant. Two of the four Valayans are the persons whom the accused was said to have 'harboured'. These men, along with R.V.I. Goundan, being subsequently tried for the murder or abetment were acquitted. Of the eleven men later charged with 'harbouring', ten including the appellant were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who tried the ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rayangouda Lingangouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom359; (1944)46BOMLR495
Macklin, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the acquittal by a jury of Belgaum of two persons tried at separate trials for the breach of an order purporting to have been passed under Rule 26(5-B)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1989, by the District Magistrate of Belgaum. The order in respect of which the trials have been held was dated September 6, 1942, and in each case the order directed the accused to present himself before the District Superintendent of Police by a certain date. On August 15, 1942, Rule 26(5-B) had been amended so as to include a provision for an order being issued against a person whose detention had already been ordered to present himself before some named person on penalty of seven years' rigorous imprisonment for breach of the order. The powers of the Government of Bombay under Rule 26 were delegated to all District Magistrates by the Government of Bombay on December 19, 1941, and by virtue of that order of delegation the District Magistrate acting under Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Vyasacharya Madhavacharya Vs. Daji Baba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom20; (1944)46BOMLR718
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a darkhast in which the decree-holders claimed to recover Rs. 1,717-13-0 as the balance out of the rent due to them for ten years 1926-27 to 1936-37. The decree .sought to be executed was passed in Suit No. 277 of 1926 filed by the appellants to recover possession of their land from their tenants the respondents, or in the alternative for enhancement of the rent. It was held in that suit that the defendants were permanent tenants, but the rent was enhancedand they were ordered to pay Rs. 304 every year as enhanced rent. The appellants, therefore, sought to recover iq execution of the decree ten years' rent at that rate. Nine of the respondents put in various contentions, but they were all disallowed by the execution Court and the darkhast was ordered to proceed. But in appeal the learned District Judge raised a new point as to whether the decree was executable. He held that the decree was merely a declaratory decree declaring that thedecree-holders...
Tag this Judgment!Amratlal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom302; (1945)47BOMLR95
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. I agree with the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother Divatia. But in deference to the very full arguments that have been advanced by counsel. I desire to refer to two features of this appeal about which there has been much discussion.2. In the first place, the learned Judge in the Court below proceeded on March 13 and 14, 1940, to view the property and the locality in question. This was done after the parties had closed their evidence, and apparently after the final speeches of the pleaders had been delivered. Some of the pleaders accompanied the learned Judge on this expedition. In the case of the appellants they were represented by their manager who also accompanied the Judge. The Judge made extensive notes of what he saw. In that state of affairs the learned Judge on April 29, 1940, delivered his judgment.3. The notes he had made, which extend over ten typewritten foolscap pages, are divided into thirty-three paragraphs. Two instances will...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Babaji Vs. Manohar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom307; (1945)47BOMLR90
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against an order passed by the Assistant Judge, Sholapur, confirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Barsi in Civil Suit No. 202 of 1937 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit with costs.2. This was a suit filed by the plaintiffs to redeem a mortgage executed by their ancestor in the year 1872. The mortgage was a usufructuary one. The plaintiffs' father and other heirs of the original mortgagors applied to the conciliator under Section 39 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, for redemption of the mortgage. The heirs of the mortgagees then claimed that Rs. 7,758 were due on the mortgage, but the parties eventually came to a settlement before the conciliator. The terms of the settlement were incorporated in the conciliator's award, exhibit 47, which provided for the payment of Rs. 5,200 by annual instalments of Rs. 200 each and further stated that on default in the payment of two instalments, the applicants' i.e., the mor...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shaikh Hasan Abdul Karim and Akbarkhan Attamahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom274; (1944)46BOMLR470
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The appellants were tried by Blagden J. and a Special Jury at the Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1943 for the murder of a police constable, named Nasiruddin Badruddin, on December 25, 1942, and were convicted and sentenced to death on October 12, 1943. They have appealed to this Court under the provisions of the recent Act, India Act No. XXVI of 1943, under which any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in the exercise of its Original Criminal Jurisdiction may appeal to the High Court against the conviction on any ground which involves a matter of law only, or with the leave of the appellate Court, or upon the certificate of the Judge who tried the case that it is a fit case for appeal, against the conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a matter of fact only, or a matter of mixed law and fact, or any other ground which appears to the appellate Court to be a sufficient ground of appeal; and with the leave of the appellate Court against the sentence p...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhod Dahya Vs. Musajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom58; (1944)46BOMLR715
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision by the petitioners, who were the defendants in the lower Court, against an order made by the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Bulsar in a suit filed against the petitioners by the opponent. The suit was for possession of certain property which the opponent alleged had been sold to . him by the petitioners and one Bai Mani, and for rent due under a registered rent-note passed by the petitioners to the opponent on February 19/1931. The suit was filed on September 26, 1941. On January 1, 1942, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act was made applicable to the Bulsar Taluka of the Surat District and a Debt Adjustment Board was established under Section 4 of the Act. On June 29, 1942, the petitioners applied to the Debt Adjustment Board under the Act. On July 3, 1942, they applied to the Court under Section 73 of theAct that the hearing of the suit should bet stayed till the application to the Debt Adjustment Board had been decided, an...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Pandurangrao Vs. Sheshadasacharya Ramacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom60; (1944)46BOMLR711
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a revision application against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, XXVIII of 1939. The applicant obtained a decree against the opponent in Small Cause; Suit No. 1531 of 1932 on March 24, 1933, and filed darkhast No. 478 of 1936 to execute the decree, and a land belonging to the opponent was attached. The proceedings were transferred to the Collector for sale of the property. Five days before the date fixed for the sale, the opponent made an application under the Bom bay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act that the execution proceedings should be stayed.2. To that application the applicant put in his objections. These were heard on July 20,. 1942, and the case was adjourned to August 10, 1942, for passing orders. On August 10 and 13, 1942, the opponent put in affidavits of two persons on hi s behalf to show that his father Ramacharya, the original debtor, had been personally ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »