Mumbai Court October 1945 Judgments
Mamand Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR295
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an. appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dismissing an appeal by the three appellants against a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shahpur District, at Sargodha, convicting the appellants of the murder of one Naman and sentencing appellants Nos. 1 and 3 to death and appellant No. 2 to transportation for life. The High Court confirmed the said death sentences. At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals should be dismissed, and they now give their reasons for such advice.2. The learned Judges of the High Court accepted the evidence of three eye-witnesses Raja Sarwar Khan'(P. W. 11), Barkat (P. W. 13), and Samand (P. W. 15) as to the manner in which the murder was carried out. The story of these three witnesses, which was in substantial agreement, was that they, heard a commotion at the dera of one Gahra, that they saw appellants Nos. 2 and 3 beating with st...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Narayan Vaikar Vs. Trimbak Narayan Vaikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR622
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against his brother for a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of a certain staircase. The trial Court granted the declaration which was confirmed in appeal. In second appeal it was contended that although the finding that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the staircase was a finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence, that appreciation was based on a document which was not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp. That document was a certified copy of a partition decree passed on an award, in which the staircase in dispute had been allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The original decree was not before the Court and it was contended that as the original decree had not been drawn up on a proper stamp, its secondary evidence was inadmissible and the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court based on a certified copy of that document was thereby vitiated. Divatia J. accepted that c...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Behari Lal Vs. Dinshaw and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR293
Thankerton, J.1. The present appeal arises out of an application by the present appellant for permission to proceed in the liquidation under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with an application in which he or his predecessor applied to have his name substituted for that of the respondent bank in a preliminary mortgage decree.2. The whole warrant for that application was based on an assignment alleged to have been made by the respondent bank in favour of the appellant prior to the date of liquidation. That document, on the face of it, shows that it was not signed by any director or official of the bank. It shows, further, as far as one can see, no signature on behalf of the bank.3. Issue No. 5, which has been considered and as to which concurrent findings have been made by the Courts in India, raises a question of the authority of Balakram to act on behalf of the bank. That was based on an alleged power of attorney by the bank in favour of Balakram. The principal of the po...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Bhushan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR288
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment and order of the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow dated May 5, 19144, varying as to sentence only an order of the Sessions Judge at Lucknow dated January 10, 1944, by which the appellant was found guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of one Bilasia, his wife's bandi maidservant, under para. 2 of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment, a sentence which, by the said variation, was reduced to a period of about four months which the appellant had already served.2. At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and that they would give their reasons later. This they now proceed to do.3. The original charge against the appellant was under Section 302 of the said Code for the murder of Bilasia, but he was committed for trial on the charge of culp...
Tag this Judgment!Lady Dinbai Petit Vs. M.S. Noronha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom407; (1946)48BOMLR255
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee. The material relevant facts are these.2. Under a trust deed dated January 17, 1931, the petitioners, who are trustees, held vacant land admeasuring about 85,000 square yards in the Tardeo locality in Bombay. In January, 1942, the Controller of Supplies asked for the use of the land for storage of motor vehicles. In that correspondence, on March 14, 1942, it was stated that the trustees should let the land to the Controller of Supplies. The rent was to be twelve annas per square yard per annum and the period of lease was twelve months with an option for a renewal for a further period as may be necessary. The Deputy Controller by his said letter asked the appellants to send the: draft terms and conditions of the proposed lease. In anticipation of the execution of the lease the land was occupied by the Controller of Supplies on March 24, 1942. On March 31, 1942, the Secretary to the Government of Bo...
Tag this Judgment!istak Kamu Musalman and Ghelabhai Nanji Shet Gujarathi Vs. Ranchod Zip ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR775
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that Certain gifts were void, for recovering one-third share in the properties conveyed by them and for other ancillary reliefs. The main facts in this case are undisputed. Chunilal, a wealthy but profligate Bania of Dharangaon, died without issue on April 12, 1938. In 1908 when he was forty years of age, he brought defendant No. 1, a Mahomedan prostitute girl of fifteen, from Aurangabad, and kept her as his mistress. He kept her in a separate bungalow till the death of his wife Kasabai in 1931, and thereafter they lived together in the same house. On January 5, 1914, six years after defendant No. 1 became his mistress, Chunilal gave her a bungalow worth Rs. 1,000 and two lands worth .Rs. 3,000 by two gift deeds, exhibits 181 and 183, and another house worth Rs. 400 in 1926 by the gift deed, exhibit 188. He then passed four more deeds ,of gift in her favour in 1929 and 1931, and two in favour of her b...
Tag this Judgment!istak Kamu Musalman Vs. Ranchod Zipru Bhate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom198
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that certain gifts were void, for recovering one-third share in the properties conveyed by them and for other ancillary reliefs. The main facts in this case are undisputed. Chunilal, a wealthy but profligate Bania of Dharangaon, died without issue on 12th April 1938. In 1908 when he was forty years of age, he brought defendant 1, a Mahomedan prostitute girl of fifteen, from Aurangabad, and kept her as her mistress. He kept her in a separate bungalow till the death of his wife Kasabai in 1931, and thereafter they lived together in the same house. On 5th January 1914, six years after defendant 1 became his mistress, Chunilal gave her a bungalow worth Rs. 1000 and two lands worth Rs. 3000 by two gift deeds, Exs. 181 and 183, and another house worth Rs. 500 in 1926 by the gift deed, Ex. 188. He then passed four more deeds of gift in her favour in 1929 and 1931, and two in favour of her brother, defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohrabji Dhunjibhoy Medora Vs. the Oriental Government Security Life A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR123
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated November 18, 1943, made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction affirming a decree dated April 14, 1943, of the same Court passed in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. In the suit the appellants ,who were plaintiffs claimed damages against the respondents for breach of contract. Both Courts in India held that the contract between the parties was terminable by the respondent on reasonable notice and that in the circumstances of the case two years' notice was a reasonable notice and .accordingly that the notice of 3, 1/2 months by which the respondents had purported to terminate the agreement was not reasonable; and damages were awarded to the plaintiffs on that basis. On a counter-claim judgment was given for the respondents.2. Before their Lordships' Board the appellants have raised five questions:-(1) Whether the contract under which the appellants were employed as agents for the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Purshottam Trikamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom333; (1946)48BOMLR159
Sen, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, Barrister-at-Law, and an advocate of the Original Side of this Court, who is at present under detention in the Arthur Road Prison, Bombay, in accordance with an order passed by the Government of Bombay on July 12, 1945, under Section 9 of the Restriction and Detention Ordinance, 1944 (No. III of 1944), continuing the operation of an order made by the said Government on December 22, 1942, under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules directing his detention. The applicant is a member of the Indian (National Congress and the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee. In his application he has stated the following facts. On November 19, 1942, he was arrested in connection with the Congress movement following the resolution of the All-India Congress Committee dated August 8, 1942. On December 2, 1942, an order was made against him under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules and he w...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Chhaganlal Shah Vs. Bissesarlal Chirawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR686
Bhagwati, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are merchants and members of the Bombay Bullion Exchange, Ltd.2. There were transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants for purchase and sale of gold in the month of September 1944, which transactions were subject to the rules and regulations of the Bombay Bullion Exchange, Ltd. According to the plaintiff there were sales of 1,000 tolas of gold effected on the respective dates, September 13, 1944, September 14, 1944, and September 16, 1944, These transactions are admitted by the defendants. There were also transactions for the purchase of 500 tolas of gold on September 16, 1944, which, again are admitted by the defendants. The defendants, however, contend that there were two transactions for purchase of 500 tolas of gold by the plaintiff from the defendants effected on September 15, 1944, which transactions are disputed by the plaintiff. On this state of affairs the plaintiff contends that as against the transactions for the sal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »