Mumbai Court December 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.
Emperor Vs. J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom361; (1947)49BOMLR352
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The historical background from which these applications in revision spring, is set in the Ordinances, Notifications and Orders for regulating' the life of the Community, the preservation and distribution of supplies and the efficient prosecution of the war created under emergency legislation of War.2. The matters with which we are concerned depend upon two Notifications for regulating the distribution and transportation of raw materials in the iron and steel industry, the rules for the punishment of offences, and a group of Ordinances designed for setting up Special Tribunals for the trial of offenders against the control Notifications. Except for prolongation, all the Orders made under the Defence of India Act, 1939, and the Rules would have expired on September 30, 1946, being the date fixed, as being six months after the cessation of hostilities against the enemy.3. The applicants are two companies incorporated outside British India, and three persons who ...
Adiveppa Channappa Kittur Vs. Rachappa Balappa Hosmane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1946
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR30
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal from the judgment dated January 22, 1942, of Mr. B.C. Patil, who was then First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum, has come before this full bench as it raises questions of some importance with regard to the application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, to mortgage suits in cases in which the mortgagee was a Hindu joint family, which subsequently divided, so that the individual members of the family or the divided branches, represented by their kartas or managers, become co-owners of the mortgage. The same position may also follow, when the original mortgagee is a Mahomedan, who subsequently dies, and the mortgage devolves upon his heirs. Such difficulties are indeed inherent in any system which does not require rights in or to immovable property to vest in a legal representative, but which recognises a multiplicity of co-owners, who are often difficult to trace or who may be unwilling to co-operate.2. By a mortgage dated November 1, 1926, one ...
Tuka Krishna Khot Vs. Dhanu Krishna Khot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom320; (1947)49BOMLR219
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur, through the District Judge at Satara, referring certain questions of law which arise under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1939, as amended. The plaintiff has filed a suit for accounts under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879. The transaction in suit purports to be a sale and is evidenced by a deed executed in 1939. It is the plaintiffs case that this transaction is in the nature of a mortgage and as such he has sued for accounts under Section 15D. The defendant contends that the transaction is a sale out and out, and resists the plaintiff's claim for accounts. Pending the suit in July 1946 the plaintiff applied to the learned Judge that the suit should be transferred to the Debt Adjustment Board at Shirala under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. The defendant resisted this request on the ground that the present suit is not for the ...
Chittambaram Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR564
Wright, J.1. At the conclusion of the arguments in this appeal, their Lordships expressed their opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and stated that they would give their reasons later. This they now proceed to do.2. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Dunkley, Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Rangoon, dated March 26, 1946, in which he reviewed and confirmed a judgment given on February 25, 1946, by U. Kyaw U, a Special Judge appointed under the Special Judges Act, 1943 (Burma Act No. X of 1943) for Rangoon Town District. The said Special Judge had convicted the appellant under Section 802 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. This sentence was confirmed by the High Court.3. The appellant petitioned His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal both on the merits and on the question of the jurisdiction of the Special Judge. His submission on the latter point was that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try him and that the whole o...
Pulukuri KottayA. Vs. King-emperor.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947PC67
1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated October 22, 1945, dismissing an appeal against the judgment and order of the Court of Session, Guntur Division, dated August 2, 1945, thereby the appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 to 9, and nine others, were found guilty on charges of rioting and murder. Appellants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 were sentenced to death, and appellants Nos. 3 and 9 were sentenced to transportation for life. There were other lesser concurrent sentences which need not be noticed. At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced the advice which they would humbly tender to His Majesty, and they now give their reasons for that advice.2. The offence charged was of a type common in many parts of India in which there are factions in a village, and the members of one faction are assaulted by members of the other faction, and, in the prosecution which results, the Crown witnesses belong t...
Shamrao G. Rane Vs. Shashikant R. Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR498
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the two petitioners, who are the kartas and managers of their respective joint families consisting of themselves and their minor children, for an order that they may be authorised to alienate the shares and interests of their respective minor children, the respondents herein, in an immoveable property situate at Dammer Lane, and agreed to be sold by them to one Dattatraya Ramchandra Naik and to execute in favour of the purchaser the conveyance and all such assurances as they may be necessary, and that the sale of the property be sanctioned as being for the benefit of all the minor respondents.2. The question that arises for my consideration on this petition is whether in accordance with the practice which has hitherto obtained, I should appoint the petitioners the guardians of the property of the minor respondents and sanction the sale or merely authorise the petitioners to alienate the shares and interests of the minor respondents as asked fo...
Fakirchand Jankiram Vs. Narmadabal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR770
Bavdekar, J.1. The question which calls for determination in the present appeal is whether a statement made by the appellant in an application which he made for permission to bid at an auction sale of certain property is an acknowledgment of liability sufficient under the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act to save limitation in respect of an application for execution of a decree for sale which had been obtained by the mortgagee of the property. The decree had been obtained long before the date of the application which was made by the appellant, and the decree in the execution of which the appellant sought permission to bid was a decree for money which he was seeking to execute against the mortgagor. In the application the appellant stated that there was an encumbrance of Rs. 1,011-7-9 of the mortgagee on the property and he went on to say that he would purchase the property if allowed to bid subject to the mortgage. The date of this application is admittedly such as ...
Abdallakhan Daryakhan Vs. Purshottam Damodar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR875
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for a declaration that the sale-deed passed by defendant No. 1 in favour of one of his sons, defendant No. 2, on October, 19, 1929, was passed with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of defendant No. 1 and as such was not binding on the plaintiff and the other creditors of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 2 had left India for South Africa some time in 1920 to earn his living, and that he succeeded in making large profits in the business undertaken, by him in that country. He used to send sums of money to his father in India from time to time. On October 19, 1929, the father, defendant No. 1, executed a sale-deed in favour of his son, defendant No. 2, for Rs. 2,500, This sale-deed purported to convey all the immovable properties belonging to the father. This document was registered on October 21, 1929. On the same date the plaintiff fi...
Timmavva Dundappa Budihal Vs. Channava Appaya Kanasgeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1946
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR260
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a somewhat unfortunate dispute between the plaintiff and her father. The plaintiff has been a widow since her childhood and it is her case that she was brought up by her father and treated with great affection. In 1936 her father made a gift to her of the property in suit and in that behalf executed a registered document on August 21, 1936. Almost immediately after the deed was executed the father apparently changed his mind and would not allow the plaintiff to take possession of the property conveyed to her under the deed or to enjoy it peacefully. That is why the plaintiff was driven to file the present suit on the deed of gift executed in her favour. Originally the plaintiff had asked for an injunction on the ground that she was in possession of the property in question at the date of the suit. Subsequently, however, she made an alternative claim for possession and gave up her claim for injunction.2. The claim made by the plaintiff on the...
Emperor Vs. Jehangir M. Jassawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR393
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. At the time of hearing criminal revision application No. 369 of 1946 brought to this Court by Mr. Jassawalla against Mr. Vaney, it was brought to this Court's attention that these two persons were engaged in a bitter dispute with regard to some property at Juhu, and as a result were indulging in a multplicity of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates' Courts of this City, involving not only each other but also in some of the cases the relatives and servants of each other respectively. These mutual recriminations usually take the course of criminal proceedings of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and some of these cases to which this Court's attention was drawn appeared very frivolous and vexatious, and we enquired generally from the Magistrates about the number of the criminal complaints of this type, which had been filed at the instance of these two persons. In the result on July 8, 1.946, in rejecting the revisional application to whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »