Mumbai Court August 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.
Safia Begum Vs. Abdul Rajak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom438; (1945)47BOMLR381
Lokur, J.1. These first appeals arise out of two suits filed in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Sholapur, one by the mother Sahebjadi and the other by her son Abdul Rahiman, defendant No. 1 in both the suits being her step-son Abdul Rajak. Her husband Hajimahamad died on May 14, 1939. A month before his death, on April 15, 1939, he made a gift of his bungalow and chawl to his son Abdul Rahiman, of his house and stable to his wife Sahebjadi and of his shop in Mangalwar Peth to his first son Abdul Rajak. These gifts were orally made by him in the presence of his lawyer Diwan Bahadur Limaye and he subsequently made applications to the City Survey Officer to enter the names of the donees against the respective properties. One of these suits was filed by Sahebjadi and the other by her son Abdul Rahiman to recover possession of the properties respectively given to them by Hajimahamad, or in the alternative they asked for a partition of the entire property and for possession...
Emperor Vs. Leslie Gwilt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom368; (1945)47BOMLR431
Sen, J.1. The applicant, who is managing director of Messrs. H.J. Foster & Co. Ltd., and another were tried for an offence under Rule 116(2) and Rule 122 of the Defence of India Rules, read with notification No. 383-II(A) published in the Bombay Government Gazette on August; 12, 1943. Accused No. 2, who is a clerk in the grain shop of the said company, was acquitted. The applicant, who is accused No. 1, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 or in default to simple imprisonment for one week. The case against him was that on August 12, 1943, a Government Notification in the Finance Department of the Government of Bombay was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, the notification being issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the said Government by Rule 116 of the Defence of India Rules, ordering that every person holding any stock of certain specified food grains should furnish on every Man day to the Director of Civil Supplies (Statistics Section), Secretariat, Bombay, a full ...
Vithoba Savlaram Vs. Shrihari Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom319; (1945)47BOMLR116
Chagla, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) for redemption of the property in suit. The plaintiffs case was that one Amrut Malhari Deshmukh mortgaged the property in suit to Sankru Khandu Hande in 1891 to secure a loan of Rs. 25 fixing twenty years as the period for the redemption of the mortgage. The plaintiff is the transferee of the right, title and interest of the heirs of the deceased mortgagor. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but on appeal the suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court.2. Mr. A.G. Desai on behalf of the appellants has raised three points in support of this appeal. The first is that the plaintiff has failed to prove the mortgage on which his suit was based. The position with regard to this mortgage of 1891 is that the original document is not forthcoming, and the plaintiff proved this document by a certified copy. Now a mortgage-deed is, under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a public docu...
In Re: All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom497; (1945)47BOMLR420
Blagden, J.1. Some years before the present war, and for aught I know to the contrary since, a man used to stand outside the Courts of Justice in London with a banner inscribed on one side with the words 'Arbitrate, Don't Litigate' and on the other with the words 'Beware of Lawyers.' Lord Justice Goddard once remarked to me that he thought that man was the best friend of the legal profession. I must say that the present case seems to show that the learned Judge was perfectly right. The history of the matter has been most unfortunate from, the point of view of both the parties. The present applicant, Mr. R.S. Chetty, who as his name suggests comes from a district in the Madras Presidency, entered into an agreement with the respondents on April 23, 1941, under which the petitioner was to supply a considerable quantity of groundnuts to the respondents. Clause 10 of this agreement provided as follows:All disputes whatsoever, which shall arise between the parties hereto out of or in connect...
Sadashiv Shivbasappa Burje Vs. Govind Virpax Ambi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom351; (1945)47BOMLR114
Chagla, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover the amount due with reference to his share on a mortgage dated May 3, 1925, and a further charge dated June 19, 1926. It seems that the father of defendant No. 1 executed these two deeds in favour of defendant No. 2 and one Narsappa. The plaintiff is the assignee of Narsappa. Defendant No. 2 purchased the equity of redemption of the property, the subject-matter of both the deeds; and the plaintiff filed the suit, as I have stated, to recover his share of the mortgage debt and to bring the mortgaged property to sale.2. There is no dispute in this second appeal as to the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage which has been decreed by both the lower Courts. The dispute arises as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to bring the whole of the mortgaged property to sale or only a half of it. Both the lower Courts have taken the view that as the plaintiff was suing in respect of half the mortgage debt, he wa...
District School Board of Belgaum Vs. Mohamad Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR323
Chagla, J.1. The only point that arises in these appeals and in the Civil Revision Application No. 4 of 1941 is one of limitation. The appellant, the District School Board of Belgaum, had employed the respondents in the different appeals and in the civil revisional application as teachers and they were being paid on a certain scale. Pursuant to a certain Resolution passed by Government, the Board came to the conclusion that they had been paid more than they were entitled to and, therefore, the Board directed that the respondents should refund the excess payments made, and orders were passed for deducting the excess amount from their pay by monthly instalments. These orders were communicated to the respondents by the end of April, 1937, and the deductions actually started from April 1, 1937. These deductions went on for about twenty months when the respondents obtained legal advice and protested to the Board that these deductions were not legal and they filed the suits in October 1939 f...
Emperor Vs. Vithal Tukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom183; (1944)46BOMLR860
Sen, J.1. The applicants were tried along with certain other accused for certain offences including an offence under Section 436, Indian Penal Code, 1860, i.e. arson, in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, the trial being by jury. Under an erroneous view that the Enhancement of Penalties Ordinance, 1942, applied to Kolaba District, from which the case came, the Judge empanelled a jury of nine persons under 8. 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, as the Ordinance made the offence under Section 436 punishable with death. Six of the accused were convicted and three acquitted. The acquitted persons are the present petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and petitioner No. 4 is one of those convicted. Five out of the six convicted accused appealed, the one who did not appeal being petitioner No. 4. There was also no appeal against the acquittal of the present petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This Court found that the Enhancement of Penalties Ordinance had not been made applicable to Kol...
Gurunathappa Deekappa Vs. the Dharwar Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom197; (1945)47BOMLR38
Chagla, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 380-7-0 which, according to him, was levied by the Municipal Borough of Dharwar by a distress warrant illegally. The plaintiff also claimed interest on this amount of Rs. 380-7-0. The trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 178-12-0. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and that Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court. From that decree the appellant has tome to this Court in second appeal.2. A preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lies inasmuch as the subject-matter of this suit does not exceed Rs. 500 and it is a suit of a nature cognisable by the Court of Small Causes. Now looking at the frame of the suit, it is clear to my mind that what the plaintiff asks in this suit is for a refund of the; amount recovered by the Municipality illegally from him, and his suit clearly falls under Section 72 of the Indian Co...
Kekhushru Edulji Vs. Jinabhai Jiwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom383; (1945)47BOMLR445
Lokur, J.1. This is a reference made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat under Order XLVI, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, and arises out of an appeal pending before him under Section 9 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. In the-statement of facts of the case drawn up by him he has said, that he entertains a doubt about the correct interpretation of the word 'income' in the definition of the word 'debtor' in Section 2, Sub-section (6)(a)(iv), of that Act, but he has expressed no opinion of his own as required by Order XLVI, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant, claiming to be a debtor, made an application to the Debt Adjustment Board at Bulsar Under Section 17, Sub-section (1), of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, for the adjustment of his debts. The Board held that he was not a debtor since his annual income from sources other than agriculture exceeded Rs. 300. 'Debtor' is denned in Section 2(6)(a)(iv) as meaning 'an individual (i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›