Mumbai Court February 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.
Nagindas Chhotalal Vs. Kunversha Hormusji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom181; (1946)48BOMLR812
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the District Judge at Surut remanding Suit No. 109 of 1942 for retrial on certain issues framed by him. Plaintiff No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Hormusji, plaintiff No. 2 is Hormusji's widow and plaintiff No. 3 is Hormusji's daughter. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree against them on a mortgage and sought to recover the decretal amount by sale of the mortgaged property in Darkhast No. 437 of 1937 in execution of the decree, The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 being agriculturists, the execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector for effecting the sale of the mortgaged property under Section 68 of the Civil Procedure Code. (In the course of those proceedings, the plaintiffs made an application that they were small holders as denned in the Bombay Small Holders Relief Act, 1938, and therefore the sale should be stayed under Section 3, Sub-section (1), of that Act. According to the plaintiffs, th...
Jaitunbi Fatrubhai Vs. Fatrubhai Kasambhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Bom114
Lokur, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she was the owner of survey No. 347 at Deolali, and that its sale by her husband, defendant 1, to defendant 2 was not binding on her, and for the recovery Of its possession from the defendants. When defendant 1 married the plaintiff in 1935, he agreed to pay her Rs. 2500 as mahr, and in lieu of the mahr he made a gift of survey No. 347 to her at the time of the marriage. In spite of the gift, defendant 1 sold the land to defendant 2 for us. 1600 on 4-4.1938, and hence the plaintiff had to file this suit. Defendant 1 did not contest the suit, but defendant 2 did not admit the alleged gift to the plaintiff and claimed that he was its full owner under the sale deed passed to him by defendant 1. In proof of the gift, the plaintiff relied upon the entry made in the Kazi's book at Bombay at the time of her marriage with defendant 1. That entry says:Certified... that marriage was celebrated ...
Abdul Rahim Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR473
Macmillan, J.1. The appellant on May 12, 1944, was convicted on a charge of murder and sentenced to death after a trial before the Sessions Judge of Ambala sitting with a jury of seven. The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of four to three. There were other minor charges against the appellant on which he was also convicted, but it is unnecessary to refer to these. Sentence of death having been passed on the appellant, the 'proceedings,' as required by Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were submitted for confirmation to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. The appellant also appealed to the High Court against his conviction.2. The case came before a divisional bench of the High Court consisting of the Chief Justice Sir Arthur Trevor Harries and Mr. Justice Teja Singh. After reviewing the evidence and the summing up of the Sessions Judge to the jury they came to the conclusion that certain material evidence had been improperly admitted at the trial and that...
The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. Vs. E.M. Nanavaty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom42; (1946)48BOMLR551
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated September 20, 1945, and raises the short point whether what has occurred between the appellant company and its employees amounts to a trade dispute within the meaning of the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, and as such, is a matter which can be referred to an adjudicator, viz. respondent No. 1, who has been appointed by the Government of Bombay for that purpose under Rule 81A(c) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act provides the machinery for referring trade disputes to Courts or boards and by Sub-section 2(j) 'trade dispute' is denned to mean any dispute or difference between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of. the employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person. By Sub-section 2(k) 'workman' means any person employed in any trade or industry to do any skilled o...
Chunilal Bhogilal Shah Vs. Abdul Dawood Vohra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR748
Sen, J.1 This suit was brought by the appellant for possession of the suit property on the ground that he had purchased it by a sale-deed on December 20, 1938, from the mother of the two defendants. Prior to the sale-deed there had been a mortgage of the suit property on June 22, 1929, by the defendants' father in favour of the plaintiff, the mortgage being possessory. In the suit, however, the plaintiff did not mention anything about the mortgage though it was mentioned in the sale-deed on which he relied. In March, 1941, the defendants, who were minors at the date of the sale, contended that the sale was not legal under the Mahomedan law, having been effected by their mother, and that both the mortgage and the sale were without consideration. The suit was originally against defendant No. 1 alone and in his written statement, he also urged that defendant No. 2, his brother, should also be joined. Thereafter on July 29, 1941, the plaintiff made an application to join defendant No. 2 an...
Madhubhai Amthalal Vs. Amthalal Nanalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom156; (1946)48BOMLR721
Blagden, J.1. This is an application under Order XVIII, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, made in the following circumstances:2. The hearing of the suit was concluded before me about a fortnight ago and I reserved judgment. Last Thursday, as is not disputed by the plaintiff's counsel, the solicitor for defendants Nos. 1 to 5 happened to come in possession of certain information, as a result of which he made a search in the Prothonotary's office and there discovered, as Mr. Purshottam on his instructions now tells me, that the plaintiff had made in proceedings before the Prothonotary ill October, 1938, statements which appear to be completely at variance with those he made in evidence before me on several material points and' which, therefore, if they are true, destroy his case before me as far as those matters are concerned. I assume, and have no reason to do otherwise, that the solicitor concerned could not have found this matter out earlier by the exercise of reasonable diligence. It is...
Ramjohn MehomoodIn Vs. Yahyabhai Abdul Kayum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom149; (1946)48BOMLR723
Blagden, J.1. This is an application for an amendment of pleadings made in rather peculiar circumstances. To his plaint, admitted on March 3, 1945, the plaintiff, who is claiming a dissolution of a partnership between himself and the defendant and consequential reliefs, annexed a document as one on which he would rely, namely, a deed of partnership dated December 18, 1943,2. This deed recited that it was thereby mutually agreed and declared that the parties thereto, the present plaintiff and the present defendant, had become partners as and from October 27, 1941, 'upon the following terms and conditions.' Clause 9 provided that the working partner (the present plaintiff) should devote his whole time and attention to the partnership business and should not directly or indirectly engage in any other business. The defendant counter-claimed, alleging breaches of Clause 9 or of an antecedent oral agreement, both before and after December 18, 1943. To this counter-claim the plaintiff replied...
Digamber Shridhar Dhekne Vs. Ramratan Raghunath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom471; (1947)49BOMLR281
Sen, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed in 1931 and 1939 in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge, Poona, namely, suit No. 1540 of 1931 and suit No. 162 of 1939. In the first suit the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased city survey No. 320 and other survey numbers situate at Somwar Peth, Poona, in darkhast No. 2 of 1920 in September 1923 and they alleged that they could get possession only of city survey No. 316 owing to the obstruction made by the defendant when delivery of possession of the properties which had been sold in the darkhast was to be made. In suit No. 162 of 1939, it was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 had similarly purchased city survey No. 318 in the same darkhast proceedings and that he was obstructed from getting possession by defendant No. 2 but that he took forcible possession of this survey number some days thereafter and remained in possession till 1937 when he was dispossessed by the defendant. Both these suits were, accordingly, for possession fro...
Mahomed Meera Vs. Dattatraya Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom36; (1946)48BOMLR548
Lokur, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum for revision of an order of compensation passed under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, against the Police Patil of Karoshi who had made a false report to the Police Sub-Inspector that the two accused had committed theft of certain logs of wood belonging to Government. Accused No. 1 is a medical practitioner of Karoshi and accused No. 2 is the Kulkarni of the village. They purchased a babul tree standing on the boundary of the field of one Krishna Zutale and had it cut into logs. The Police Patil saw the logs lying by the roadside, and thinking that some one had wrongly cut a roadside tree belonging to Government, he made a panchnama about the logs on January 21, 1943, and kept them under attachment. The two. accused came to know of this, and immediately sent an intimation to the Police Patil that they had purchased the tree from its owner Krishna Zutale, and that if he had attached the logs, he shoul...
Emperor Vs. Joseph D'silva
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom310; (1947)49BOMLR6
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision of Mr. Ahmed I. Rahimtoola, Presidency Magistrate of the Sixth Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, who convicted the applicant under Sections 32 and 34 of the Bombay Medical Practitioners' Act, 1938, and inflicted upon him a line of Rs. 25. The question involved is of considerable Importance, since we are informed that it may affect the position of a number of persons practising medicine in this Province.2. Part III of the Bombay Medical Practitioners' Act in which both Sections 32 and 34 appear came into operation on November 1, 1944. Section 34 provides :Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of Section 32 shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 100 for the first offence and to RS. 500 for every subsequent offence after his conviction for such first offence.And Section 32 is as follows:-No person other than (i) a practitioner registered under Part II of this A...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »