Mumbai Court December 1945 Judgments
Shamji Bhanji and Co. Vs. North Western Rly. Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR698
Bhagwati, J.1. The plaintiffs are a partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in saltpetre, sulphur, chlorate of potash, etc. On May 22, 1942, they sold fifty eases of chlorate of potash to one Shahjada Abdul Hakim who was the proprietor of the Afghan Match Factory (Commercial) at Kabul at a price of Rs; 850 per case, Bardan, Mukadami and railway charges to be paid by the plaintiffs. The goods were to be supplied by the plaintiffs to Shahjada A. Abdul Hakim at Peshawar and the plaintiffs accordingly on May 23, 1942, entrusted the fifty cases of chlorate of potash to the B. B. & C. I. Railway at the Carnac Bridge Goods Depot for carriage to Peshawar City. Chlorate of potash has been classified in Red Tariff No. 15 which contains rules and rates for the conveyance by rail of explosives and other dangerous goods as dangerous, corrosive and poisonous goods, and it has been provided in the Bed Tariff No. 15 that chlorate of potash should be packed in drums or in casks or cases lined,...
Tag this Judgment!Tumdu Dhansing Vs. Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1945
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR209
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated January 3, 1939, of Mr. R.R. Karnik, who was then First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia. That a delay of nearly seven years should intervene before an appeal is disposed of by this Court is a deplorable state of affairs and is one which it is to be hoped the new rules which have been recently introduced will prevent ever happening in the future. In this particular case, however, the delay has in part been brought about by the fact that when this appeal first came before this Court, certain documents which the Court considered necessary had not been disclosed and were not available, and also because the case was adjourned in order that Government might have an opportunity of being represented by the Advocate General, having regard to the public importance of the questions involved.2. The suit concerns an alleged auction sale conducted by a Mamlatdar as a revenue officer of Government, by which it is alleged that prop...
Tag this Judgment!Hashmatulla Rahatulla Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom465; (1946)48BOMLR382
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal under the amended Section 411 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, against the verdict given by a majority of seven to two in a trial held before Mr. Justice Bhagwati on a charge of murder. The majority of the jury convicted the accused of murder, and Mr. Justice Bhagwati accepted the verdict and sentenced him to transportation for life, but at the same time gave a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal under the amended law.2. The powers of this Court in dealing with appeals from verdicts of a High Court jury have been laid down in Government of Bombay v. Fernandez (1944) 47 Bom. L.R. 363. The effect of that decision is that, although the power of interference given by Section 411 A is very wide, it does not necessarily follow that the High Court is bound to follow it indiscriminately in every case, and in practice the High Court will not exceed the powers which it ordinarily exercises in dealing with cases referred to it under Section 307 o...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Dattatrya Prabhavalkar Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR434
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated April 1, 1944, which affirmed a judgment and decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction, dated October 16, 1942, whereby the suit of the appellants against the respondents was dismissed.2. In the suit the appellants challenged the actions of the- second respondent, who is the Municipal Commissioner] for the City of Bombay, purporting to be taken under the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 (Bom. Act III of 1888), in the course of development of the Mahim district of the City, and, in particular, of an area, which included the land now occupied by the Shivaji Park, and the surrounding land, which included the plot of land now owned by the appellants. The appellants originally challenged the bona fides of the second respondent, who may be referred to as the Municipal Commissioner, as well as the validity of his actions, but the former ...
Tag this Judgment!Babanna Gurusangappa Vs. Channappa Chanmallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR788
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated December 23, 1340, of. Mt. L. Y. Ankalgi, who was then the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur. The appeal raises two quite different questions, and it will he convenient to deal with the question with regard to the Indian Limitation Act first, because if the respondents' contention is right with regard to that Act,, then the other question would not arise at all and this appeal would have to be dismissed with costs.2. Now, the question of limitation arises in this way: The plaintiff was adopted on October 22, 1925, and that, for the purpose of running of time, is the critical date. This litigation was commenced in the Court of the 'First Class Subordinate Judge on October 1, 1938, and it is, therefore, apparent, unless some time can be allowed, that the suit is out of time and barred because more than twelve years would have elapsed. But Mr. Jahagirdar on behalf of the appellant, who is the plaintiff, claims tha...
Tag this Judgment!Babanna Gurusangappa Vs. Channappa Chanmallappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom140
Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 23rd December 1940, of Mr. L.Y . Ankalgi, who was then the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur. The appeal raises two quite different questions, and it will be convenient to deal with the question with regard to the Limitation Act. first, because if the respondents' contention is right with regard to that Act then the other question would not arise at all and this appeal would have to be dismissed with costs.2. Now, the question of limitation arises in this way: The plaintiff was adopted on 22nd October 1925, and that, for the purpose of running of time, is the critical date. This litigation was commenced in the Court of the First Class Sub ordinate Judge on 1st October 1938, and it is, therefore, apparent, unless some time can be allowed, that the suit is out of time and barred because more than twelve years would have elapsed. But Mr. Jahagirdar on behalf of the appellant, who is the plaintiff, claims that under Section 14,...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Rattan Vs. Parma Nand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR363
John Beaumont, J.1. This an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated July 15, 1942, which allowed in part an appeal from, and modified the judgment and decree of, the Senior Subordinate Judge of Gurdaspur, dated March 3, 1941.2. It is common ground that prior to 1934 the appellant and respondent, who are full brothers, their father Bhodu Shah, and their step brother Wadhawa Mal had formed a joint Hindu family, and that in 1932 Wadhawa Mal instituted a suit for partition. On December 27, 1934, Bhodu Shah having died during the pendency of the suit, Wadhawa Mal on the one hand and the appellant and respondent on the other hand entered into a compromise whereby one-third of the family property was assigned to Wadhawa Mal and two-thirds to the appellant and respondent.3. The suit in which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on December 21, 1939. In his plaint he alleged that after the partition of 1934 he and the respondent remaine...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Govind Vs. Bhut Ashte Co-operative Credit Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR610
Lokur, J.1. There is no substance in this appeal. Plaintiff No. 1 was indebted to defendant No. 1, which is a co-operative credit society, and as he failed to satisfy his debt, an award was passed against him by an arbitrator under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The decree was sent to the Collector for recovering the amount of the award by sale of his property under Section 59. The property was sold by auction by the Special Recovery Officer to defendant No. 3, who was the highest bidder, on January 25, 1936. The Special Recovery Officer then made a report to the District Deputy Collector to confirm the sale on February 10,1936. Before the sale was confirmed, plaintiff No. 1 sold the property to plaintiff No. 2 on February 22, 1936, and the latter deposited the entire amount due under the award with the Co-operative Credit Society and obtained a receipt for full satisfaction of its dues on February 23, 1936. On the same day plaintiff No. 1 presented to the S...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Damodar Vs. Anant Madhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR625
Macklin, J.1. The holder of a decree against a person since deceased came in execution against the judgment-debtor's widow in respect of the rent which she was receiving1 under a ninety-nine years' lease of watan property executed by her husband. The execution has been dismissed by both the Courts below; arid the question is whether the rent received by the widow in circumstances such as these is property subject to execution. We hold that it is not.The argument addressed to us is that the rent derivable from such property is not itself watan property and is therefore a fit subject for execution, being the property of her late husband in the hands of a widow who is bound to pay her husband's debts. I may say at once that this is a position which it seems to us to be impossible to take up Rent, in spite of the argument addressed to us by the decree-holder's learned advocate, cannot in our opinion be regarded as anything but a benefit to arise out of land and as such it is immovable prop...
Tag this Judgment!Ladhuram Manormal Vs. Chimniram Dongardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR608
Macklin, J.1. The appellant in these cases is the lessor of certain house property. The respondent is in two cases the lessee and in two other eases the auction-purchaser of the lessee's rights in execution of the decree in a suit brought by himself against the lessee as mortgagee of the lessee's rights. Some years after the mortgage the lessor sued the lessee on the lease, and the two suits were compromised on the lessee undertaking to pay up, all the rent in arrears by a certain date, failing which the lease was to be forfeited and the lessor given a right of re-entry. It is to be noted that the mortgagee was not a party to those suits between the landlord and the tenant. During this period the mortgagee sued his mortgagor (the lessee) and obtained a decree. Two executions of the landlord's decree were taken out by the lessor; and in August 1938 the lessor obtained a warrant for possession. In September 1938 the lessee's rights were bought at execution by the mortgagee of those right...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »