Mumbai Court July 1945 Judgments
Mohamed Sugal Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR138
Goddard, J.1. Their Lordships now give their reasons for the advice they humbly tendered to His Majesty on July 31, that this appeal should be dismissed.2. The appellant together with his brother Elmi was charged on July 22, 1944, before the Protectorate Court of Somaliland with the murder of his half-brother Abdillahi on or about May 17, 1942. The Judge of the Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, and acquitted Elmi. The conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Military Governor sitting as Judge of the Protectorate Court on the appellate side and the appellant subsequently obtained special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The ground upon which special leave was given was that the Court had admitted and acted upon the unsworn evidence of a girl of ten or eleven years of age whom the Judge found was competent to testify but whom he did not consider was able to understand the nature of an oath. It was conceded by the Crown that if her evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Shanta Apte Vs. Sailapati Chatterji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR636
Blagden, J.1. This is a summons by the defendants in the suit for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff. It raises some important and rather difficult questions. Briefly, the claim in the suit is as follows:2. That the plaintiffs, by plaintiff No. 2 on behalf of both of them, orally agreed with defendant No. 29, on behalf of all the thirty defendants, at Victoria Terminus Station, Bombay, on or about September 19, 1944, that a company of artists led by the first (or female) plaintiff would give a performance at the All India Music Congress to be held the following December or January at Calcutta-the dates to be later specified by or on behalf of the defendants-in consideration of having their travelling expenses to and from Calcutta and a reasonable remuneration for their, and, in particular, the first (or female) plaintiff's services, paid to them: and that the defendants did specify the dates for the purpose. That the plaintiff and her...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Raghavendra and ors. Vs. Raghavendrarao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom377
Kania, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Poona in civil Suit No. 224 of 1931. 'When this suit was filed, plain, tiffs 1, 2 and 3 were minors. They are sons of defendant 1 by his predeceased wife. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs' next friend the gandfather, who is a Jahagirdar and a First Class Sardar in the Deccan Defendant 1 lost his first wife in about 1927. Defendant 2, who is stated to be of Bharadwaja gotra, was taken in adoption by one Kale, who was of a different gotra, on 11th July 1929. On 12th July 1929, defendant 1 married defendant 2 according to Hindu rites. The next friend of the minor plaintiffs, who was aware of the intended marriage, had taken part in various ceremonies prior to the marriage. A couple of days before the marriage he received a letter from the Shankaracharya of Sankeshwar Pith, expressing the opinion that the intended marriage of defendants 1 and 2 would be against Hindu religion. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Valliammai Achi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR956
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated August 19, 1942, affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, dated July 10, 1940. The appeal raises the question whether an application for execution, No. 72 of 1940, preferred on November 25, 1939, for execution of a decree dated November 3, 1934, is barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and that depends on the construction of Article 182 of the Act.2. That article is in the following terms: Description of Period of Time from which period begins application. limitation. to run.182. For the execution of a de Three years 1. The date of the decree orcree or order of any Civil Court order, ornot provided for by Article 183 2. (Where there has been anor by Section 48 of the Code of appeal) the date of the final de-Civil Procedure, 1908. cree of order of the Appellate Court, or the withdrawal of the appeal, or 3. (Where there has been a re- view of judgment) the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Naganna Naidu Vs. Venkatrayalu Naidu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR1007
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the appellant who is a judgment-debtor to set aside a court-sale of six items of property belonging to him which were sold in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 38 of 1919 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, obtained against him by respondent No. 1, the decree-holder. This appeal relates only to three items of the properties ; these being items 4, 5 and 6, specified in the sale proclamation. At the sale the properties were purchased by the decree-holder himself. The application to set aside the sale was made under Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the Court to set aside a sale 'on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.' This power of the Court is subject to the proviso 'that no such sale be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless upon the facts proved the Court is satisfied that the appellant has sustained substant...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal Jasraj Vs. Rustomji Dastur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR635
Blagden, J.1. This is a motion by the defendant in the suit to set aside an ex parte decree passed against him on January 19 this year, under Order IX, Rule 18, or, alternatively, under Order XXXVII, Rule 4. The only question, as far as Order IX, Rule 13, is concerned, is whether he (the defendant) was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for bearing.2. Very shortly, the position was that he could not appear when the suit was called on for hearing, because it was a summary suit, and he had not even filed his appearance. The reason, he says, that he did not file his appearance was that the plaintiff, a Marwari money-lender, who held the defendant's promissory note for Rs. 2,000, had assured the defendant, who is described in the title of the plaint as a Parsee inhabitant, that he (the plaintiff) would not recover more than Rs. 400, with interest thereon. The defendant says that on this generous assurance he neither entered an appearance in the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitrabai N. Nadkarni Vs. Vishweshwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom109; (1945)47BOMLR980
Harilal Kania Ag. C.J.1. This is a first appeal from the judgment of the District Judge at Karwar in Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 1941. The short point argued before us is whether under the Indian Succession Act of 1925 it is open to a party to obtain -probate of a will, limited to the collection of certain debts. It was argued by Mr. Manerikar that in In re Haji Ismail Haji Abdulla I.L.R (1880) Bom. 452 a limited probate of that kind was granted to a Cutchi Memon under Section 18 of Act XXVII of 1860. He argued that Act VII of 1889 (the Succession Certificate Act) was enacted thereafter, and it contained a provision similar to what is now found in Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Following that line of reasoning it was contended that, as the present Act is an Act to consolidate the law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession in British India, decisions which were based on the construction of the previous section, although found in another Act of the Legisla...
Tag this Judgment!Sangabasavaswami Mahantaswami Vs. Baburao Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom353; (1946)48BOMLR100
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the District Judge at Bijapur. The dispute between the parties relates to the claim of the appellants to take out a religious procession with what is described as vyasantol, which is equivalent to carrying the symbol of a cut arm of Vyas, the great Hindu mythological writer. It is alleged that he wrote verses in praise of God Vishnu. That enraged God Shiva, and thereupon the Nandi (bull) of Shiva attacked Vyas and the arm was cut off. Thereafter Vyas recognised the supremacy of Shiva over Vishnu. The plaintiffs now contend before us that under the circumstances this is a part of their religious belief.2. The plaintiffs filed this suit claiming that they and the public have an inherent right, as citizens, to take out a procession with vyasantol according to their religion in the streets of Mangoli, in taluka Bagewadi, if Bijapur District. It is stated that they have got such right to take out a processiom on Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Sankalchand Shah and Co. Vs. J. Prakash and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR633
Blagden, J.1. By a contract contained in a letter of September 1, 1943, the present plaintiff firm, who carried on. business in Bombay, in effect, agreed to sell to the present defendants, a firm carrying on, business at Karachi, certain consignments of tea on various terms, one of which was that the defendants should deposit with the plaintiffs a sura of Rs. 4,000 'as deposit money for the due fulfilment of these transactions.' Subsequently, certain disputes arose between, the parties and, it is, I understand, common ground that the contract was not fulfilled. The present plaintiffs say that the defendants were guilty of a breach of contract by non-acceptance, and the present defendants say that the plaintiffs were guilty of a breach of contract by non-delivery. These disputes having arisen, the present defendants filed a suit in the Chief Court of Sind, Karachi, on November 10, 1944, claiming return of their deposit. They reserved, or claimed to reserve, the right to claim damages fo...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Narhari Ganpati Borkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom446; (1946)48BOMLR163
Sen, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, by the Sessions Judge of Thana who has convicted the accused Narhari Ganpati Borkar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to death. The accused has also appealed against the conviction and the sentence. The case against him was as follows.2. The accused was originally working as a wood-cutter at Kalyan where he contracted intimacy with a Maratha woman named Shevanti, and they lived together for some time at Kalyan. Thereafter they went to Pen and lived there for some months. At the time of the Diwali of 1944, i.e. in October, 1944, the accused went to his native place while Shevanti returned to Kalyan on or about October 16, 1944. There she met one Govind Ragho, a former acquaintance of hers and one Shankar Chhagan, a driver of a military lorry. She went, thereafter to live with Shankar as his mistress in a chawl called Khadyachi chawl at Kalyan, Some time in October the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »