Mumbai Court September 1945 Judgments
Emperor Vs. R.K. Karanjia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom322; (1946)48BOMLR151
Divatia, J.1. This is an application by the publisher of a news magazine called ' Blitz ' for setting aside the order of the Government of Bombay dated February 24,, 1945, requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000 as security under Section 7, Sub-section (3), of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. The reason for passing the order was stated to be that in its issue of January 20, 1945, the said news magazine had published an article which contained words falling under Sections (bb) and (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. The article, which purported to be from the editor of the paper, was a short one as follows:-INFORMATION PLEASEBlitz's overall policy is to give its readers the fullest information on all topics-secret or otherwise-affecting them. As such, this paper is not bound by an antiquated convention which debars the press from releasing to the common people official secrets, confidential documents, leakages of such news as is sought to be...
Tag this Judgment!Fozmal Bhutaji Vs. Shridhar Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom499; (1946)48BOMLR327
Bhagwati, J.1. Two brothers, one Vithal Ramchandra Parulkar and another Vishnu. Ramchandra Parulkar, had monetary dealings with a firm of money lenders by name Himmatmal Manji & Co. commencing from sometime prior to November 17, 1922V The account in respect of these monetary dealings was maintained in the joint names, of Vithal Ramchandra Parulkar and Vishnu Ramchandra Parulkar in the books of account of Messrs. Himmatmal Manji & Co. This account was adjusted on or about November 17, 1922, when a sum of Rs. 25,150 was found due and owing by the two brothers to the firm of Messrs. Himmatmal Manji & Co. as of that date. On the same date the adjustment was recorded in the books of account of Messrs. Himmatmal Manji & Co. showing the said sum of Rs. 25,150 as due by both of them 'Personal debts to the account of both till today, November 17, 1922.' Signatures of both of them were appended at the foot of this adjustment. On the same day it was agreed between the firm of Messrs. Himmatmal Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sanabhai Nathabhai Vs. Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Bom319; (1946)48BOMLR171
Harilal Kania, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a civil revision application of the original defendant in civil suit No. 83 of 1943 filed in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Nadiad. The plaintiff filed the suit on the allegation that an ostensible sale deed for Rs. 9,000 executed by him on April 6, 1942, was really a mortgage. He alleged that he was paid only Rs. 3,000 in cash and Rs, 5,000 had been credited towards past dues. He disputed his liability for the amount mentioned in the deed. The prayers were: (1) to declare that for the reasons stated above, the fields mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint had been mortgaged by the plaintiff to the defendant and for which the defendant had obtained a document on April 6 in the form of a sale, but that the same was in reality a mortgage; and (2) to take an account of the mortgage and the produce of the fields, since the said fields were mortgaged on April 6, 1942, under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, and asce...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›