Mumbai Court January 1945 Judgments
Mahbub Shah Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR941
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by -special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated March 14, 1944, confirming, on appeal, the conviction of the appellant of the murder of one Allah Dad and the sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on December 20, 1943.2. The appellant Mahbub Shah is aged nineteen. He has been convicted of murder under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also convicted of the attempted murder of one Hamidullah Khah and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment; but that conviction has not been brought before the Board.3. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the appellant has been rightly convicted of murder upon the true construction of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.4. Section 34 runs as follows:When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner...
Tag this Judgment!Annapurnabai Gopal Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom204; (1945)47BOMLR839
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that she as the widow of one of the inamdars of the village of Pimpalgaon Garudeshwar had got the right to have all the income, from whatever source, recovered by the Government, and by virtue of that right she sued to recover certain' taxes levied by the Government from a company, called A.B. Godrej & Co., for six years from 1932 to 1938. The plaintiff had filed this suit in a representative capacity on behalf of herself as well as all the other inamdars of that village, claiming under a common grant of the Peshwas in 1754. Her case in substance was that this village was granted to the plaintiff's ancestor as a hereditary jahagir inam, that the British Government continued the same in 1883 under a sanad by which on the payment of a fixed sum of about Rs. 93 all the rights which the inamdars enjoyed in the village were continued, that the village was situated on the bank of the river Godavari ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadaksharappa Kabbur Vs. Karlingawa Karadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom187; (1945)47BOMLR848
Sen, J.1. The appellants in both these appeals are assignees of the decree-holder of two decrees obtained against two judgment-debtors, the dates of the decrees being August 14, 1930, and August 4, 1928. The questions involved in both the appeals are the same. I shall take the facts in second appeal No. 665 of 1942. In that case the decree was passed on August 14, 1930. Darkhast No. 323 of 1933 was the first darkhast filed on April 11, 1933, to: execute it. On a third party objecting and claiming interest in the property sought to be proceeded against the darkhast was dismissed on February 20, 1936. The present darkhast, being the second darkhast, was filed on June 9, 1939, that is, more than three years after the last darkhast was disposed of. The appellants sought to bring it within time relying on a suit, namely suit No. 75 of 1936, which was filed by them under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that the property was liable to be sold as b...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general Vs. Province of Madras
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR629
Simonds, J.1. This appeal is brought by the Governor-General in Council from a decree made by the Federal Court of India in its original jurisdiction on March 17, 1942. In proceedings commenced in that Court against the respondent, the Province of Madras, the appellant claimed that the Madras Act IX of 1939, known as the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939 and hereafter referred to as 'the Madras Act,' in so far as it purports to levy a1 tax on first sales in Madras1 of goods manufactured or produced in India is, except in respect of certain excepted goods, ultra vires and beyond the competence of the Legislature of the respondent. The Federal Court dismissed the appellant's suit following its previous decision in an appeal from the High Court of Madras in a suit in which the present respondents were appellants and a firm called Boddu paidanna and Sons were respondents and the validity of the same provisions of the same Act was in issue. This case will be referred to as the Boddu Paid...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Parkash Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR395
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. In this appeal it has been submitted that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that under Order XVII, Rule 1, it was presented out of time. It has also been questioned whether the order appealed against is a final order within the meaning of those words in Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. We do not propose to deal with either of those points, for in any event in our judgment the offence under Section 408 on Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code with which the appellant is charged is not one in respect of which the protection of Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1985, can be claimed.-(See Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown (1939) F.C. 159 The appeal is accordingly dismissed.2. We would, however, take this opportunity of saying that in cases to which Section 270 of the Constitution Act applies, the words of the section in our view require that if proceedings be instituted before sanction under the section is obtained, such proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR396
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by a detenue against an order of the High Court at Patna dismissing his application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant was arrested on March 27, 1942, under an order dated March 19, 1942, purporting to be made by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules. The application under Section 491 was filed on April 28, 1943. For one reason or another, the hearing of the application was delayed till February, 1944, and in the meanwhile, Ordinance III of 1944 was promulgated on January 15, 1944. The application was dismissed by the High Court; but, on appeal, this Court held that the new Ordinance (Ordinance No. III of 1944) did not take away the power of the High Court to deal with the matter and accordingly remitted the case to the High Court with a direction that the petition be restored to the file and disposed of in due course of law. The order of this Court was...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Agarwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR392
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this case was charged with two offences alleged to have been committed on April 20, 1944, contravening the provisions of clause 9(a) and 13(d) of the Drugs Control Order, 1943. He was convicted on June 29, 1944, and sentenced to a term of four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to a further term of four months rigorous imprisonment. Against this conviction he appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, and on November 13, 1944, his appeal was dismissed, although the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from four months to one month. A certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was granted and hence the appeal to this Court. The Drugs Control Order, 1943, provides by Clause 16 as follows :No prosecution for any contravention of the provisions of this Order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government....2. In purported complianc...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Bhaichand Vs. Mohanlal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom102; (1945)47BOMLR836
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal raises an important question regarding the exemption of salaries from attachment in execution of a decree under Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant filed Suit No. 1063 of 1936 against the respondent on October 5, 1936, and obtained a money decree on August 31, 1937. The respondent is a clerk in a mill, and the appellant filed darkhast No. 1 of 1943, on January 4, 1943, to execute his decree and recover' the decretal amount by attachment of the respondent's salary, which, according to the darkhast application, was Rs. 105 per month. The respondent contended that his salary was only Rs. 62, and not Rs. 105, that it was not liable to attachment under Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, and that in any case all that could be attached was half of the excess of the salary over Rs. 100. The executing Court found that Rs. 105, which the respondent received from the Mill, consisted of Rs. 62 as his pay, and Rs. 43 or so as dearness allo...
Tag this Judgment!Lyallpur Bank Limited Vs. Ramji Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR640
Russell, J.1. The points involved in this appeal turn upon the true construction of Section 73(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), which is in the following terms:Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets after deducting the coats of realisation, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons.It is common ground that at all material times there was held by the District Court, Unao, assets of one Shanti Lal amounting to a sum of Rs. 49,166 or thereabouts, and that before the receipt of those assets various decree-holders had made applications to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the said Shanti Lal and had not obtained satisfaction thereof. They accordingly claimed to be entitled to a rate...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Sane Vs. D.S. Sonavane and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom110; (1945)47BOMLR832
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar sitting as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Act of 1923. Under Section 30 of that Act, an appeal only lies to this Court on a substantial question of law. That section is as follows:(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:Then there are set out in sub-paragraphs various types of orders from which an appeal lies, followed by this proviso:Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), Unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees.2. On March 21, 1939, a Workman of the name of Fatechand was killed, and it seems that he was living in adulterous intercourse with opponent No. 1, who was the wife of another man, and who had two young children ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »