Mumbai Court April 1945 Judgments
Kesar Chand Vs. Uttam Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR945
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated May 16, 1941, which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Montgomery, dated May 29, 1939, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellants before the Board-for setting aside the sale and for possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint which were sold by Court in execution of a decree, by reason of a surety bond executed by their father Uttam Chand in the circumstances mentioned below. The properties in dispute have been found to be ancestral.3. The main question arising for decision in this appeal is whether the above-mentioned surety bond creates or gives rise to a personal liability on Uttam Chand.4. Uttam Chand and Dogar Chand, shown in the pedigree given below, were two separated Hindu brothers. Kesar Chand and Ram Lal-appellants Nos. 1 and 2-are the sons of Uttam Chand; Chand Kishan-...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Atmasing Vs. Atmasing Jessasing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Bom494; (1945)47BOMLR716
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Coyajee J. on an application for stay of arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The plaintiff, claiming to be the adopted son of defendant No. 1, filed this suit for several declarations on the footing that on adoption he became a member of the joint family. He claimed discovery and partition in the joint family properties. He alleged that he was adopted on February 9, 1942. On coming to know of this suit, defendant No. 1 took out a notice of motion for stay, on the ground that under two agreements dated January 30, 1942, and July. 26, 1942, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had agreed to refer all matters which may arise and cause disputes between them to arbitration. In support of that notice of motion defendant No. 1 filed an affidavit in which he propounded the two documents mentioned above. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in reply in which he denied that he had executed the documents propou...
Tag this Judgment!BadrudIn Abdulla Hirji Vs. Registrar of Marriages
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom129; (1945)47BOMLR938
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner Badrudin Abdulla Hirji against the respondent the Registrar of Marriages, Bombay, under Section 43 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act (XV of 1872) for an order that the respondent be directed to issue a certificate forthwith before the expiration of fourteen days required by Section 41 of the Act and that the respondent be ordered and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for the solemnisation of the intended marriage between the petitioner and one Miss Nancy Adala Ferguson. Miss Ferguson is a minor within the meaning of the Act, not having completed her age of twenty-one.2. It appears that on March 20, 1945, Miss Ferguson gave notice of the intended -marriage to the Marriage Registrar at Bangalore. The petitioner had also given a notice of marriage to the respondent, he being a resident of Bombay. The Marriage Registrar at Bangalore did issue in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of the Act a certificate w...
Tag this Judgment!District Local Board Vs. Shantaram Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom117; (1945)47BOMLR898
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. These appeals and petitions concern an octroi imposed by the Local Board of Ratnagiri under the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923. For convenience there has been called on together, Second Appeals Nos. 973, 974 and 975 of 1942 and Civil Revision Applications Nos. 208 to 213 both inclusive and 626 to 645 both inclusive, all of 1942. One of the twenty-nine cases so called on comes from Devgad and the remainder from Malvan. Except in Civil Revision Applications Nos. 208 to 213, the Local Board failed in the immediate Courts below.2. The right to impose an octroi was not seriously disputed in the Courts below, but in this Court the arguments have ranged over a more extensive field and it became clear at an early stage that there is a sharp distinction between octroi alleged to be payable before December 22, 1938, and that alleged to be payable after that date. In the Courts below it was the method of collection of the octroi and in particular whether an action was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kirtilal Jivabhai Vs. Chunilal Manilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom27; (1945)47BOMLR728
Chagla, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kania, and the question that arises for determination is1 whether a decree is capable of execution or is barred by limitation. It was an ex parte decree that was passed on November 13, 1923, in favour of Jivabhai Maganlal, the father of the appellant, against the firm of Vadilal Manilal. On January 4, 1926, Jivabhai applied for execution of the decree to this Court and a warrant was issued for the arrest of Vadilal Manilal and Chunilal Manilal, respondent No. 1 herein, partners of the defendant firm, the notices under Order XXI, Rule 22, and under Order XXI, Rule 37, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being dispensed with. In June, 1928, Jivabhai died leaving behind him two sons, Kantilal (respondent No. 2), Kirtilal (the appellant), a widow and a brother's widow. In August, 1930, the decree was transferred to Ahmedabad for execution. On September 4, 1930, a certificate was issued by; the Prothonotary and Senior Master that further...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bajirao Yamanappa Hatgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom32; (1945)47BOMLR675
Chagla, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It seems that on May 22, 1942, one Section v. Ghatnatti, Sub-Inspector of Police, was murdered at Kerur. In connection with that offence the applicant was arrested on August 27, 1942, and he along with others was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Southern Division, Bijapur, under Sections 147 and 186 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was released on bail by the Court on October 7, 1942. The trial of the case went on October 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16, 1942, and on May 11, 1943. On all these days the applicant appeared at the trial. Thereafter he absconded. On May 24, 1943, the District Magistrate, Bijapur, issued an order under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules for the detention of the applicant in the Belgaum Central Prison for one year from the date of arrest. On January 4,, 1944, a proclamation under Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued f...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gajanan Krishna Yalgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Bom533; (1945)47BOMLR669
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. We have before us the petitions of four persons made under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, which provides for the codified and restricted form of habeas corpus which applies to India. All the petitioners have been arrested and are detained Under Rules or Ordinances made by virtue of the Defence of India Act, 1929, All four petitioners are persons who have stood their trial on some criminal charge or charges and all of them had been acquitted of those charges by the trial Courts. Mr. Jahagirdar on their behalf urges that the real motive of the detention orders is to punish the accused for crimes which the executive authority thinks they have committed, but in respect of which they have been acquitted by the Courts, and that accordingly the Provincial Government cannot have been satisfied, which, as has now been laid down, means reasonably satisfied that the petitioners or any of them are within the class of persons to which either Rule 26 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Maganlal Vs. Harkisandas Kahandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom149; (1945)47BOMLR878
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of the defendant's one-third share in the property called Bapana-Khar in Bassein taluka and for recovery of its possession as well as mesne profits, or in the alternative for the return of the earnest money, together with Rs. 5,250 as damages for breach of contract. The main facts which led to this suit are undisputed. Bapana-Khar was owned in equal shares by the defendant Amritlal, his brother Hiralal and their nephew Navanitlal. They were separated, and had divided their property, but they had kept Bapana-Khar undivided, and wanted to dispose of it. The defendant had already mortgaged his one-third share to his niece Kamalabai, and an estate-broker named Bhagwandas had obtained a money decree against him. So on March 24, 1943, he passed a writing, exhibit 39, to Bhagwandas authorising him to bring about a contract for the sale of his share in Bapana-Khar for Rs. 10,000 within one month. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Mulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom154; (1945)47BOMLR876
Lokur, J.1. This revision application raises the important question of the necessity of impleading the Provincial Government in a suit filed by or on behalf of a superseded local authority. The suit out of which this application arises was filed by the Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad against its contractor Mulchand to recover Rs. 46-14-0 by way of damages for loss caused by his negligence by; reason of which the plaintiff had to pay damages to one Sakrabhai Motichand. The suit was filed in the Court of the Registrar of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, and when it was pending, the Government of Bombay, in exercise of its powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 38-B of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, issued a notification superseding the Ahmedabad Municipality and appointing the Collector of Ahmedabad to exercise all. the powers and duties of the Municipality under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2). A few days later Mr. Whitworth was appointed as the Administrator of the Municipality under that cl...
Tag this Judgment!Matildas Bishop Vs. Suzan Anthony Millard
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom138; (1945)47BOMLR906
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati, Eustace Edwin Millard, an employee of the G. I. P. Railway, was a subscriber to the provident fund of the railway company. On July 23, 1936, he made a nomination under the rules of the fund in the prescribed form, which is headed 'The Form of declaration', in favour of his mother, He married the respondent on July 18, 1941, and died on October 1, 1943. He left him surviving his widow the respondent, and two sisters who are the appellants. His mother died on September 23, 1943, i.e. before his own death. After his death the appellants obtained letters of administration to the estate of their mother and claimed to receive payment of the provident fund due to the deceased from the railway company. The respondent claimed the same fund on the ground that on her marriage the nomination ceased to subsist under the rules. The G. I. P. Railway being owned at all material times by Government, the Governor General in Council...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »