Mumbai Court August 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.
Prabhatsang Vaghela Vs. Bhagwatsang Jhala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom454; (1946)48BOMLR185
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. These are three second appeals covered by one judgment of the District Judge at Ahmedabad. They arise out of three separate suits filed by the same plaintiffs, but against different defendants. The common question covered by the litigation was whether the plaintiffs, who were the wantias, were entitled to resume the lands from the defendants. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the plaintiffs' contentions were not proved, and dismissed the suits. On appeal, the learned District Judge of Ahmedabad was of opinion that the oral evidence was not material. He considered the documentary evidence only for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiffs had established their contentions. In his view, the plaintiffs had succeeded in doing so. He, therefore, allowed the appeals and passed decrees in favour of. the plaintiffs. The defendants have filed these second appeals.2. The material facts are these: The plain...
Emperor Vs. Mahomed Bashir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom315; (1946)48BOMLR46
Divatia, J.1. This is an application by accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, for the offence under rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with the Commissioner of Police's Notification No. 14824/123-C dated September, 12, 1944. Accused No. 1 is the proprietor of a hotel called Islami Hotel at the corner of Grant Road in Bombay, and accused No. 2 is a manager of the hotel employed by the first accused. The hotel served refreshments consisting of food and non-alcoholic drinks to customers by virtue of a licence issued to accused No. 1 in 1941 and renewed from year to year. The charge against the two accused was that they on December 16, 1944, kept their hotel open between the hours of 1 A.M. and 5 A.M. and did sell or supply for consumption on their premises food or drinks to customers and aided and abetted each other in doing so and thereby committed an offence punishable under rule 81(4) read with rule 121 ...
Vishnu Gopal Mahant Vs. Vishvanath Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom192; (1945)47BOMLR1102
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) with A.P., Belgaum. The material facts are these: The plaintiff alleged that one Satteppa and defendant No. 1 were members of Shri Mahadeo Cooperative Credit Society of Yeksamba. Satteppa took a loan from the Society for which defendant No. 1 stood surety. As the debt was not repaid, the society obtained an award decree against Satteppa and defendant No. 1. In enforcement of that decree certain lands of defendant No. 1 were attached and sold through the revenue authorities. The area so sold was one acre and twenty gunthas. The boundaries of that area are set out in the certificate for sale issued to the plaintiff, who purchased the same at the auction with the necessary permission. The plaintiff got symbolical possession but not actual possession, which remained with the defendants. The present suit was filed to obtain physical possession of the property from the defendants. De...
Emperor Vs. Rustam Karanjia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom115; (1945)47BOMLR986
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay acquitting the editor and publisher of a weekly newspaper in Bombay called 'Blitz' of the offence under Section 27B of the Bombay Children Act (Bom. XIII of 1924).2. One Dr. Talati was arrested on March 31, 1944, for ill-treating his daughter named Zarine, and charged for causing hurt to her, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 9 of the Bombay Children Act. He was therefore placed before the Magistrate for remand on April 15, 1944. But before that date, a report was published in the newspaper 'Blitz' on April 8, purporting to be from the woman editor of that paper. In that report certain facts were stated, the substance of which was that one girl named Zarine, exactly five years of age, winsome, frail and sickly, the daughter of a Parsi medical practitioner, whose age was somewhere in the forties, was cruelly ill-treated by her father, and was lying in t...
Babu Ningappa Vs. Paragouda Parsappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom399; (1946)48BOMLR108
Sen, J.1. This application raises a simple question, namely, whether the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by the civil Courts subordinate to the High Court are affected by the surcharge to which process-fees leviable under the Court-fees Act, 1870, are subject under Bombay Act XV of 1943.2. The applicant filed suit No. 35 of 1943 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Athni. He paid a sum as process-fees calculated according to the rules which are to be found, in the Civil Manual issued by the High Court, Vol. I, (1940), at pp. 137 to 143. According to the office of the learned Judge, the applicant was liable under Bombay Act XV of 1943 to pay the surcharge prescribed thereby on the process-fee and the process-fee paid was, therefore, insufficient. The plaintiff contended that he was not liable to pay the surcharge, but the trial Court overruled that contention and, holding that Bombay Act XV of 1943 applied to such process-fees, gave him three da...
Emperor Vs. Mahadeo Dewoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom189; (1945)47BOMLR992
Lokur, J.1. In this case six persons are being tried for rioting and murder of Shankar Sakharam and Narayan in prosecution of their common object. Narayan's dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate in which he mentioned one of the accused as his assailant. Several eye-witnesses who were present at the scene of offence have been examined for the prosecution and they have stated which of the accused were seen by them taking part in the rioting. At the identification parade Narayan recognised his assailant and said to the panchas in the presence of the police what he had done to him. Similarly at other identification parades held by the police, the eyewitnesses identified some of the accused and said what they had seen them doing. The learned Counsel for the prosecution tenders those panchanamas in evidence and wants to prove the statements made by Narayan and other witnesses at the identification parades. The learned Counsel for the accused objects to the statements being proved as...
Emperor Vs. Bhagwandas Tulsidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom183; (1945)47BOMLR995
Lokur, J.1. Accused No. 2 is committed to this Court on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Dharamsey, and accused Nos. 1 and 4 on a charge under Sections 323 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to the said Dharamsey and aiding and abetting each other in doing so. In this Court the learned Clerk of the Crown altered the latter charge, and charged accused Nos. 1 and 4 under Sections 302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for aiding and abetting accused No. 2 in the murder of the said Dharamsey. Mr. Haji, the learned Counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 2, objects to this alteration as being outside the scope of Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section provides:When any person is committed for trial without a charge, or with an imperfect or erroneous charge, the Court, or, in the case of a High Court, the Clerk of the Crown, may frame a charge or add to or otherwise alter the charge, as the case may be, having regard...
Tan Bug Taim Vs. Collector of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom216; (1945)47BOMLR1010
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioners are partners carrying on business in partnership in the firm name and style of Kokwah Chinese Restaurant at Dhanraj Mahal, Apollo Bunder, Bombay. They have been occupying shops Nos. 1, 5 and 11 on the ground-floor of the Dhanraj Mahal and have been conducting the business of the restaurant since March 22, 1944, when they purchased the restaurant together with its paraphernalia and goodwill from the previous owners thereof on payment of a sum of Rs. 42,000. The restaurant has been in existence in any event from and after May 1942 when the previous owners stopped their business of curios which they had been carrying on there along with the business of restaurant and converted the whole premises for their user as a restaurant. The restaurant employs about twenty-four servants and is fitted up with costly fixtures, fittings and furniture which has been installed therein. It also enjoys considerable goodwill in so far as it commands a great reputation and cate...
Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. Collector of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR1070
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioners are a firm carrying on business at Bombay, Cawnpore, Calcutta and several other places. The partners of the petitioners' firm are three brothers, viz. Sir Padampat Singhania, Lala Kailashpat Singhania and Lala Lakshmipat Singhania. In paras. 1 and 2 of their petition the petitioners set out the, various businesses and industrial concerns in which they are interested and also set out the manner in which the partners of the petitioners' firm as well as the directors, managers, and representatives of one or more of the concerns of the petitioners in India are obliged to and do in fact come down to Bombay very frequently. They say that for the purpose of housing them as well as the offices of their several businesses they have rented since 1941 flat No. 4 on the third floor of the premises known as Ganga Bihar at Marine Drive in Bombay. The petitioners say that they have no other place in Bombay where they can have any accommodation for the aforesaid purposes...
Dinkar Wasudeo Joshi Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom346; (1946)48BOMLR104
Sen, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for a declaration that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no right to proceed with the arbitration case No. 9 of 1942 and that the attachment levied against the property mentioned in the plaint was illegal and void, for a permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from proceeding with the case, and for damages amounting to Rs. 1,000.2. The material facts are these. One Rajaram Govind Joshi was a clerk in the service of defendant No. 3, the Deogad Urban Co-operative Bank, Limited, having been appointed as such on July 27, 1936, He became a member of the bank in October,. 1937, and on September 18, 1941, he passed an indemnity bond furnishing security against misappropriation. In 1942 the accounts of the bank were audited, and it. appears that the auditors discovered that between January, 1939, and March 1942 there had been defalcation to the extent of Rs. 16,008-12-0, and as Rajaram was in charge of the accounts of the bank, it was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »