Mumbai Court January 1946 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.
Punjab Province Vs. Daulat Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR443
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Court of India, dated May 8, 1942, by which the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated February 27, 1941, dismissing appeals by the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, IV Class, Sialkot, dated July 22, 1940, 'were set aside and the case sent back to the High Court with a direction for the framing of proper issues and the remittal of the case to the trial Court for further trial and decision.2. The only question in this appeal is whether, and, if so, to what extent, Section 5 of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act X of 1938, is rendered invalid by Section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab Act of 1938, which may be conveniently referred to as the impugned Act, by Section 5 purported to insert a new Se...
J.M. D'souza Vs. the Reserve Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Bom510; (1946)48BOMLR365
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania dated January 22, 1946. The appeal has been taken up at this early date because it involves a question of considerable importance and because unless it is determined by 1 o'clock to-morrow afternoon the time for presenting certain high denominational bank notes pursuant to Ordinance III of 1946, which provides for their demonetisation, will have passed. The petitioner, the appellant in this Court, is a person who since the coming into operation of the Ordinance presented a bank note for Rs. 1,000 to the Reserve Bank of India with a demand for payment, which demand was refused by the bank. Accordingly he filed a petition to the Court under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, praying for a mandatory order on the bank to discharge and satisfy the unconditional promise to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,000 contained in the particular bank note without imposing any condition on the petitioner. Sec...
Chhabba Lal Vs. Kallu Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR452
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated September 8, 1939, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dated November; 3, 1933, passed in a partition suit and sent the case back to the Subordinate Judge with directions to readmit it under its original number and to decide it in accordance with law.2. The question for decision is whether a reference to arbitration made in this suit, and an award made thereon, were valid as the Subordinate Judge held, or invalid as the High Court of Allahabad held in appeal.3. The question arises in the following circumstances.4. The plaintiff brought this suit for division of the property of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara. The plaintiff was the son of one Mukta Prasad, and the first three adult defendants, Kailu Lal, Sohan Lal and Sewak Lal were the sons of the only brother of Mukta Prasad, whilst the fourth and fifth defendants, Ram Lal and Jainarain, were the m...
Emperor Vs. Raghunath Krishna Ghanekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom239; (1946)48BOMLR758
Sen, J.1. The applicant was tried for the offences of boarding a large quantity of foodgrains without a licence and making incorrect returns of his stock in contravention of Clause 3 of the Food Grains Control Order, 1942, issued under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. He was convicted and sentenced for the said offences. The learned Magistrate, instead of passing an order regarding the disposal of the attached property, ordered under Section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the property should be delivered to the District Magistrate for being dealt with in the manner provided in the said section. There was an appeal to the Sessions Court which did not disturb this part of the order. Thereafter there was a revision application (Criminal Revision Application No. 324 of .1944, decided by Divatia and Lokur JJ. on December 18, 1944) to this Court and Mr. Justice Lokur who gave the judgment observed as follows:The ruling of the full bench Emperor v. Hansraj Astaji (1941...
Emperor Vs. Gokuldas Nensi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom28; (1946)48BOMLR545
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, for keeping in his possession 18020 yards of cloth in contravention of Clause 15A of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. The appellant is a partner in the firm of Bhagwandas Cursondas, holding a license to deal in cotton cloth. It is admitted that his firm was in possession of 18020 yards of unbaled cotton left undisposed of, which had been manufactured before August 1, 1943, and he is prepared to take the responsibility for it. To determine whether he thereby contravened any of the provisions of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, it is necessary to analyse some of its clauses and the numerous amendments which were issued in quick succession in the course of two years and which are so scattered that they are not easily accessible for ready reference. We will, however, confine ourselves only to those portions of the various clauses of the Orde...
Vithoba Babaji Narote Vs. Sholapur Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom241; (1946)48BOMLR804
Sen, J.1. This was a suit for an injunction brought by three plaintiffs against the Municipal Borough of Sholapur represented by its Chief Officer. The material facts are these. A piece of land, City Survey No. 9022, belonged to the Municipality which had allowed the plaintiffs to occupy the said land for residential purposes, according to the plaintiffs as the Municipality's tenants and according to the Municipality as their licensees. The plaintiffs erected houses on the said piece of land and had been in occupation thereof for ten or twelve years prior to the suit. The Municipality having started a town planning scheme gave notice to them to quit, the notice being dated August 21, 1942, and it being served on August 30. The plaintiffs did not leave the land. The procedure had been for the Municipality to allow the plaintiffs for successive periods of six months to stay on the land, payments being required to be made in respect of such occupation in advance for each period of six mon...
M. Samiullah Vs. Collector of Aligarh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR439
John Beaumont, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated September 3, 1940, modifying the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Aligarh dated August 18, 1936,. which in turn modified the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh, dated November 7, 1928.2. The land to which the first appeal relates consists of twelve bighas and nine biswas, which were held by the appellant as the mutwali of wakf property. The land to which the second appeal relates consists of one bigha which was the appellant's personal property. These lands were acquired, together with other adjacent lands, belonging to other owners, for the Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Aligarh, under Government Notification dated May 29, 1930, and issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, '1894. At that time the whole area held by the appellant was occupied by two tenants, Abdul Karim and Karu.3. During the proceedings befo...
Kaikhushru Sorabji Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom153; (1946)48BOMLR717
Kania, J.1. This rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner calling upon the respondent to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be issued against him for production of the records, relating to the order dated October 2, 1945, under which the respondent ordered that the telephone connection of Mr. B. Shah numbered 30323 be cut off for a period of one year, and that the said Mr. B. Shah do forthwith surrender the telephone apparatus installed at the place mentioned in the order and the fittings in connection with it. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner is carrying on business of selling cold-drinks in a shop at Marwadi Bazaar. According to him the telephone is used for his business and by his clients. When the order was handed over to him on October 2, 1945, he asked the officers why the order was so made. According to the petitioner those officers told him that the telephone was being used for recording bets in American futures and for other gambling purpos...
Shankar Maruti Girme Vs. Bhagwant Gunaji Girme
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom259; (1947)49BOMLR72
Weston, J.1. This revision application raises the point as to the court-fee payable in a suit for partition of the joint family properties belonging to a joint Hindu family, when the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession with the defendants of those properties. The matter has come before a full bench, I understand, because, following the recent decision of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami v. Rangachariar, [1940] Mad. 259. it now appears, in the words used by the learned Chief Justice at p. 276 of that report, that 'the Bombay High Court stands alone' in its application of Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act to such cases. The view of the Bombay High Court is expressed in three decisions: (1) Mahadeva Balwant Karandikar v. Laxuman Balwant Karandikar (1893) P.J. 13 (2) Balvant Ganesh v. Nana Chintamon I.L.R(1893) . 18 Bom. 209and (3) Dagdu v. Totaram 11 Bom. L.R. 1074 It was held in all those cases that the plaintiff in a partition suit such as the present must pay court-fee ...
Raghavendra Sadashiv Vs. Sadashivrao Madhavrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom33; (1946)48BOMLR616
Weston, J. 1. The question referred to this full bench is:Whether the rulings in Hari Govind v. Narsinhrao Konherrao I.L.R.(1913) 38 Bom. 19416 Bom. L.R. 30 and Bandoo Krishna v. Narsingrao 16 Bom. L.R. 527 are no longer good law in view of the observations of the Privy Council in Braja Sunder Deb v. Rajendra Narayan Bhanj Deo 40 Bom. L.R. 700 and whether Section 82 of the Bombay Court of Wards Act is applicable to suits brought against a Government ward before the superintendence of his property was assumed by the Court of Wards.The question is really one, and the statement of it in the reference represents two aspects of it. Section 32 of the Bombay Court of Wards Act, 1905, is in the following terms:-Subject to the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure [O. XXXII, Rule I], in every suit brought by or against a Government ward, the manager of the Government ward's property, or, where there is no manager, the Court of Wards having the superint...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »