Mumbai Court March 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.
Muljibhai Pitamberdas Vs. Bai Chanchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom81; (1944)46BOMLR731
Sen, J.1. These applications arise out of a suit in which the facts were that the defendant contracted to sell a piece of land to the plaintiff- at a certain rate in 1938,: that the plaintiff alleged that Rs. 500 were paid by him to her as earnest money and that under the contract a registered deed of sale was to be passed within three months of the contract and possession of the property was to be handed over to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff another sum of Rs. 1,000' was paid to the defendant, the time for passing the sale-deed being extended on that occasion. As the defendant failed to pass the sale-deed or deliver possession of the property, as agreed, the plaintiff filed the suit for getting a registered sale-deed executed by the defendant and, for getting possession of the property. There was an alternative prayer for damages of Rs. 1,500 and refund of the amount paid in case the Court did not enforce specific performance of the contract.2. The defence was that proper ...
Emperor Vs. Merwan Khodadad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom318; (1944)46BOMLR488
Lokur, J.1. This is a reference under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, made by; the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Additional Court, Mazagaon, for opinion on two questions of law which have arisen in the hearing of a case pending before him, in which the accused, who is, a proprietor of a bakery, is being tried for supplying four loaves of baker's bread, weighing thirteen of in all, on July 14, 1943, to a bogus customer sent by the Police Sub-Inspector, without the surrender of a bread ticket.2. To appreciate the points of law raised by the learned Magistrate, it is necessary to explain the scheme of the Bombay Rationing Order, 1943. That Order was issued by the Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, and it came into force in the City of Bombay on May 2, 1943. Rule 81, Sub-rule (4), of the Defence of India Rules, makes it a penal offence to contravene any order made under Rule 81. Clause 6 of the Bombay R...
Venkatrao Shriniwasrao Vs. Basavprabhu Sirdesai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Bom352; (1944)46BOMLR724
Divatia, J.1. This application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council has been placed before us at the instance of Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned advocate for the applicant. He says that the Registrar's office has wrongly asked for separate security for costs for the two different appeals which have been ordered to be consolidated by this Court.2. There are two different appellants in the two appeals against the same respondent on a common point. Mr. Jahagirdar contends that, as this Court has passed the order for consolidation, the order for the deposit of security for costs, i.e. Rs. 4,000, must be for one appeal and not for both.3. Order XLV, Rule 4, simply empowers this Court to make an order for consolidation for pecuniary valuation, but it does not say. anything about taking security for costs in such a case. Rule 7 of the Privy Council Rules of 1920 is as foflows :-Where there are two or more appeals arising out of the same matter, and the Court is of opinion that it would be for...
Mohandas Mulji Sicka Vs. the Collector of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1944
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR414
Blagden, J.1. This is a rule nisi for a writ of certiorari and subsidiary reliefs which has been obtained by Mr. Mohandas Mulji Sicka, against the Collector of Bombay. The circumstances are briefly these:-2. Mr. Sicka is the owner of a house called 'Sicka Villa' in Pedder Road in this city and used hmiself to reside till December, 1942, in Calcutta. In that month he was minded to go and live in his own house in Bombay. He has, apparently, a large family and is a man of very good position in life, and, quite naturally, required considerable premises for his occupation. At the time his house was let to three persons, one occupying each of its three floors-one Mr. Coutino lived on the ground floor, one Mrs. Fatah on the first floor, and a Mr. Potter on the top floor. With a view to getting rid of these people and occupying the whole house himself Mr. Sicka gave the tenants notice. Pursuant to such notice Mr. Potter, obligingly, went out. Mrs. Fatah apparently still holds her portion of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›