Mumbai Court July 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.
Govind Dhondo Vs. Godubai Dhondo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom439
Stone, C.J.1. We feel unable to proceed with this matter, as there are certain matters of fact which are not before us, and so we propose to send the case back to the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum for him to take further evidence on the following issues:(1) Whether it is necessary for the due performance of the datta homa ceremony that the widow could take part in it?(2) This Court having decided as a matter of law, that if it is necessary for the widow to take part in the datta homa ceremony, she can, though unchaste, delegate her duties: whether that delegation can be made to the officiating priest or must be made to somebody else?(3) Whether on the facts of the present ease delegation took place to the officiating priest, or whether the widow herself took part in the religious ceremony?(4) Whether the datta homa ceremony is necessary when the giver and taker belong to Bharadwaj and Shrwatsa gotras respectively?2. All parties to the appeal are to be at liberty to add...
Emperor Vs. Sibnath Banerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR1
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal is brought by leave of the Federal Court of India, from a judgment of that Court (Spens C.J., Varadachariar and Zafrulla Khan JJ.) dated August 31, 1943, dismissing eight appeals by the Crown against orders and judgments of a divisional bench of three Judges (Mitter and Sen JJ., Khundkar J., dissenting) of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated June 3, 1943.2. The orders and judgments of the High Court were made upon applications under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for directions in the nature of habeas corpus on behalf of nine persons, detained in various jails in pursuance of orders made under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, on various dates from October 24, 1940, to March 8, 1943. These orders and judgments directed the release of the applicants. Of the nine original applicants eight are called as respondents in the present appeal, but their Lordships were informed that two of the respondents had be...
Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Textile Labour Assn.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom309; (1946)48BOMLR76
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Ahmedabad Cotton ., for itself and on behalf of the other local member Mills of the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association, with leave under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, .against the respondents who are the Textile Labour Association having their office at Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad, being an association registered as a Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act. Both the petitioners and the opponents have their registered offices outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The Ahmedabad Mill-owners' Association has its registered office at Ahmedabad and all the members of that Association who are represented by the petitioners have their registered offices also at Ahmedabad. It appears that there was a dispute between the opponents and the Ahmedabad Millowners' Association as regards the bonus equivalent to four months' wages of the employees which was claimed by the opponents as payable by the various members of the Ahmedabad Mil...
Bhausaheb Jamburao Vs. Sonabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom437; (1946)48BOMLR97
Divatia, J.1. This is an application by the appellant in First Appeal No. 66 of 1941 for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree dismissing his appeal and confirming the decree of the trial Court. The opponents have taken a preliminary objection that the application is beyond time. Their contention is that the period of limitation for filing the application is ninety days under Article 179 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, to which the petitioner is entitled to add the period requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree under Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act Even so, the application is beyond time. The material dates are as follows;-The, judgment of this Court was given on July 12, 1943. The decree was drawn up by the office and signed by the advocates on the 19th. After the bill of costs was prepared by the Registrar's office it was shown to the advocates of both parties and signed by them on September 6, and thereafter ...
Fakirji Edulji Bharucha Vs. Bomanji Munchershaw Jhaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom495; (1946)48BOMLR323
Blagden, J.1. This was an originating summons taken out by the plaintiff, who is one of the two exxecutors of a Mr. Framroz Burjorji Spencer, who died on July 30, 1940. Defendant No. 1 is the other of the proving executors who is still alive; defendant No. 2 is the Advocate General, representing charity, and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are prominent members of a body called ' Es'ean Community of Vind'yu,' the name by which, apparently, they know India.2. The deceased gentleman, Mr. Spencer, by his will dated August 7, 1939, revoked all previous wills, appointed certain persons, including the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, executors and trustees, and then devised and bequeathed the whole of his estate to his trustees on trust for conversion into money and payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses. He then provided as follows:My Trustees shall invest the residue of my estate in their names in or upon any of the investments authorised by law in the case of trust moneys and tr...
V.N. Deshpande Vs. Arvind Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom423; (1946)48BOMLR90
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Joint First Class Sur-Judge at Ahmedabad. The respondents filed this suit against the appellant to restrain him from working in the Rohit Mills, as a weaving master. The appellant had agreed to serve the second respondents under an agreement dated March 28, 1944. The period of service was three years commencing from January 1, 1944. It appears from the record that the appellant was in the service of the second respondents as a weaving master for several years before this agreement was entered into. As the second respondents are the managing agents of a number of mills they reserved liberty to engage the appellant in any of the mills of which they were managing agents. With this general idea the agreement in question was entered into. Clauses 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the agreement are relevant. They run in these terms:-4. That the said weaving master will neither absent himself from his work without leave nor engage hims...
Nur Mohamad Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR287
Thankerton, J.1. In the present appeal only one question has been raised and that, as stated in the order granting leave, is a contention that the trial Court ' having held there was no evidence at all on which any conviction could be based a Court of Criminal Appeal is not justified in reversing the Court of first instance by placing reliance on the very evidence which had been entirely rejected by the Court of first instance.'2. Their Lordships were referred, rightly enough, to the decision of this Board in the case of Sheo Swarup v. The King-Emperor and in particular to the passage at p. 404 in the judgment delivered by Lord Russell. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to read it all again, but would like to observe that there really is only one principle, in the strict use of the word, laid down there; that is, that the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that eviden...
Abdeally Hyderbhai Vs. Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR631
Blagden, J.1. By a deed of trust dated December 3, 1942, the late Mr. Abdeally Hyderbhai, hereinafter called the 'the settlor', settled a sum of money on certain charitable trusts, which I need not now go into in detail. By Clause 14 of the deed he provided as follows:It is hereby agreed and declared that it shall be lawful for the said settlor, at any time or times hereafter by any deed or deeds revocable or irrevocable or by will 01 codicil expressly referring to this power, wholly or partially to revoke the trusts, powers, and provisions herein declared and contained of and concerning the same and premises hereby settled and the income thereof and to declare such new or other charitable trusts of and concerning the same or any part or parts thereof as he may think fit.2. This is an originating summons by the present trustees of the settlement to determine whether in view of this provision the settlement is void or is valid. The respondents are the Advocate General, representing char...
Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. M.H. Dinshaw and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom469; (1946)48BOMLR313
Chagla, J.1. On August 29, 1941, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a contract whereby the defendants agreed to supply to the plaintiffs certain dyeing and. bleaching machinery consisting of one scutcher, one piler and one six-bowls water mangle at certain rates and on certain terms and conditions. The contract is expressed to be a c. i. f. contract, and it is important to note this because most of the controversy between the parties in this suit has turned round the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under a c. i. f. contract. On September 15, 1941, the plaintiffs paid to the defendants a sum of Rs. 3,500 being approximately the one-third price of the machinery. The plaintiffs after that wrote several letters to the defendants making inquiries as to the arrival of the goods. On February 11, 1942, the defendants replied to the plaintiffs stating that they had received the shipping documents of the articles contracted to be sold. They asked the plaintiffs to s...
Mariambai Vs. Abdul Hamid Suleman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom340; (1946)48BOMLR73
Blagden, J.1. This is a summons by the plaintiff in the suit for her examination de bene esse on two grounds: first, that she is a woman who, according to the custom and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public 5 and, secondly, on the ground that she is seven months gone in pregnancy. I need say nothing; about the merits of the case, except that it is obvious from the nature of the plaint that the plaintiff herself is a most material-I might almost say vital-witness, which makes it very desirable that, if possible, her evidence should be heard by the learned Judge who tries the case himself.2. I shall deal first with the second of the two grounds on which the present summons is based. The defendants have adopted what seems to me a very reasonable attitude in this case, and they say that they are quite prepared that the hearing of the suit should be adjourned for, say, three months, or such other period as will enable the plaintiff to have completely recover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »