Mumbai Court March 1945 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.
Ratanchand Fakirchand Vs. Deochand Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom157; (1945)47BOMLR871
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of darkhast proceedings in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Surat. The decree under execution was obtained by the respondent Deochand against the appellant Ratanchand and his minor stepbrothers Hirachand and Jivanchand by their mother Subhadra as their guardian ad litem, for the recovery of Rs. 4,100 with interest and costs out of the property of their deceased father Fakirchand which might have come into their possession. The decree expressly stated that there was no liability against the persons or against the exclusive properties of the defendants. In the suit Deochand had claimed that survey Nos. 22/1 and 33 at Rundh belonged to Fakirchand, and the appellant Ratanchand had contended that he had inherited them from his mother Bai Jaskor on her death in 1923; but that question was left open. Deochand presented this darkhast to recover the decretal amount by sale of those two lands in execution of his decree, and the appellant resist...
Anandram Mangturam Vs. Bholaram Tanumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom1; (1945)47BOMLR719
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania dated June 20, 1944. The action is by a purchaser of certain goods against the vendors, who are the appellants in this Court, for damages for breach of contract. The breach which is now admitted was the failure of the appellants to deliver thirty-six bales of cloth, the balance of forty-one bales, the subject-matter of the contract, before the expiry of the month of February, 1943.2. The only question in dispute is the date on which damages are to be assessed which becomes very material by virtue of the somewhat violent fluctuations in the market prices. Four different dates have been suggested, and the difference in the quantum of damages is substantial. The first date is February 28, 1943, resulting in damages of approximately Rs. 7,000; the second date is May 5, 1943, resulting in damages of approximately Rs. 19,000; the third date is June 19, 1943, resulting in damages of approximately Rs. 14,000; a...
Gangadharrao Gopalrao Vs. Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom146; (1945)47BOMLR889
Lokur, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover a moiety of the properties described in the plaint at serial Nos. 1 to 30 after a partition by metes and bounds, and also for exclusive possession of the properties described at serial Nos. 31, 32 and 33. The plaintiff also asks for a declaration that he is entitled to the moveable property allotted to the share of the deceased Keshavrao, and that he is entitled to receive the judi amount specified in the plaint.2. The plaintiff Gangadharrao had three brothers, Sheshagirirao, Annarao and Keshavrao, and they formed a joint Hindu family. Sheshagirirao died without leaving a widow or any issue, and thereafter Annarao, Keshavrao and Gangadharrao lived in union. Defendant No. 1 Shreepad is Annarao's son, and defendant No. 5, Rindabai, is Annarao's daughter. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are Shreepad's sons. After Annarao's death, defendant No. 1, Keshavrao and the plaintiff lived as members of a joint Hindu fam...
Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom159; (1945)47BOMLR867
Lokur, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute. The Ahmedabad Municipality established a Provident Fund for the benefit of its employees in 1914, and in exercise of the powers under Section 8 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, the Government of Bombay applied the provisions of that Act to that Fund by a Notification dated July 2, 1929. The Municipality used to invest the Provident Fund in public securities including its own debentures. Those debentures had been issued by the Municipality under the Local Authorities' Loans Act, 1914. On June 20, 1933, the Collector of Ahmedabad wrote a letter to the Municipality that the moneys of the Provident Fund could not be invested by the Municipality in its own debentures as they were not securities within the meaning of Section 20(d) of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The President of the Municipality was therefore, requested to take steps to dispose of the debentures and to reinvest the proceeds in public securities. Later...
Birdibai Mohanlal Vs. Chunilal Chandmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom163; (1945)47BOMLR862
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. The facts that have given rise to this appeal may be stated in. a very narrow compass, and they are as follows:One Mohanlal died on April 17, 1940, leaving three sons and a widow. The sons were minors and the widow was their natural guardian. Thereupon the widow on her own behalf and as the guardian of her three minor sons applied for letters of administration of the moveable property of Mohanlal consisting mainly of shares in joint stock companies and certain deposits. There was no opposition to the application, but the learned Judge was of opinion that the application ought to have been made in respect of the whole property, both moveable and immoveable, and further that court-fee was chargeable on the whole of the estate. In this appeal it is contended, firstly, that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that an application should have been made with respect to the whole of the property, and, secondly, that the lower Court was in error in coming to the conclusion...
Pirojsha Bhicaji Vs. Dadabhai Kersasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom168; (1945)47BOMLR861
Lokur, J.1. In this case security has been furnished and deposit has been made as directed. The appeal has been declared as admitted under Order XLV, Rule 8(a), of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Notice of the admission of the appeal has to be given to the respondents under Order XLV, Rule 8(6), of the Civil Procedure Code, and a question has been raised as to whether process fees have to be paid by the appellant for the said notice.2. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that it has been the practice of this Court not to levy process fees on such notices. 3. We have ascertained from the office that the practice has not been always uniform. In some instances fees were levied on such notices; but in a majority of the cases no process fees were levied.4. Under Order XLVIII, Rule 1, Sub-rule (1), every process issued under the Code shall be served at the expense of the party on whose behalf it is issued, unless the Court otherwise directs. In the first place, the notice required to be g...
Hafizulla Latiff Saha Vs. Wakf Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom167; (1945)47BOMLR859
Chagla, J.1. This application raises the question of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Panel. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that certain darga and other properties belonging to the darga were not wakf within the meaning of the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923 and were not liable to registration under the Bombay Amendment Act of 1935 The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. He held that the value of the properties exceeded Rs. 8,530. From that decision of the learned Subordinate Judge an appeal was preferred to the learned Assistant Judge of Thana who confirmed that decision. It is from the order of the learned Assistant Judge that this revisional application is preferred.2. The main question that falls to be determined in order to ascertain whether the trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit or not is whether th...
Alimohamed Jumardikhan Vs. Shankar Tukaram Pote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom169; (1945)47BOMLR857
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. He has awarded Rs. 810 on account of an accident caused to a daily labourer who was travelling in her employer's motor lorry for loading and unloading the lorry with bricks. The accident occurred on June 25, 1943, and death took place three days later ; but notice of the accident was not given by the representatives of the injured woman until July 22, and failure to give adequate notice is one of the grounds of this appeal by the employer.2. This Court is not entitled to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation except on a substantial question of law, and that would of course include a finding of fact which was not based upon evidence; and it has been argued in this appeal that the Commissioner was wrong in his finding that the injured woman was employed by the employer. There is however evidence in that respect, though it is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›