Mumbai Court April 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.
Janardan Karandikar Vs. Ramchandra Tilak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom209; (1946)48BOMLR882
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr, Justice Blagden delivered on April 13, 1945, in a suit upon an alleged defamation contained in it newspaper article written by the defendant, who is the appellant in this Court. The article, which is in Marathi, was published on January 21, 1941, in the newspaper Keswri. That it is defamatory of the plaintiff cannot be denied; but Though in writing what he did, the defendant went, I think, far beyond the limit of what was permissible, I must remember that a verbal battle was in progress in which the plaintiff was distinctly the aggressor. Were this not so, I should feel bound to award really punitive damages. As it is, I think that the figure of Rs. 3,000 meets the case and there will be a decree for the plaintiff for that sum with costs. If I had to assess damages in respect only of the Shylock-Karkarmunda passage, I should award the plaintiff Rs. 1,000.2. It was in defence to a document intituled, 'The Public Decla...
Emperor Vs. Abdul Kader Allarakhia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR25
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. We are of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed and that the conviction and sentence must be set aside and the case sent to the next Sessions to be dealt with according to law. As our reasons for this result proceed from somewhat different angles, I will state the grounds which seem to me to make this course inevitable.2. The appellant, who is a widower, was tried before Mr. Justice Lokur and a special jury under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his only child, a girl of about fourteen years of age, and was found by the unanimous verdict of the jury guilty and sentenced by the learned Judge to transportation for life.3. At the commital proceedings the appellant was asked by the learned Magistrate whether he wanted Government to make arrangements for a counsel for his defence or whether he would make his own arrangements, to which the appellant replied: 'I want Government to make arrangements for counsel in my defence' In spite of ...
The Municipal Borough Vs. the Governor General of India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR752
Lokur, J.1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The plaintiff is the Governor General of India in Council representing the G.I.P. Railway Company, and the defendant is the Municipal Borough of Sholapur. The railway company owns two buildings known as 'Porters' Gate Quarters' bearing Municipal Nos. 60/53 and 60/54 within the limits of the Sholapur Municipal Borough. But when the Municipality prepared the assessment list under Section 78 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, for the year commencing from April 1, 1937, it omitted to levy a tax on the said two buildings through mistake. The mistake was discovered in May, 1939, and after giving a proper notice to the railway company the assessment list was corrected under Section 82 of the Act and a bill was sent to the railway company for the recovery of the arrears of tax for the two previous years, 1937-38 and 1938-39, at the rate of Rs. 12 per year. The railway company object to pay the arrears, but paid Rs. 24 under protes...
Gulam Khaja Mahamad Vs. Pandharinath Vaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1946
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR271
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 3,000 on a mortgage bond of Rs. 1,500 passed to him by defendant No. 1 on August 16, 1930. By that mortgage bond defendant No. 1 had mortgaged survey No. 59 alone to the plaintiff, but prior to this mortgage defendant No. 1 had mortgaged survey Nos. 59, 71 and 171 to defendant No. 2 for Its. 4,000 on April 8,1930. In execution of a money decree obtained by a stranger all the three lands were sold subject to defendant No. 2's mortgage and were purchased by defendant No. 2 for Rs. 700 on May 12, 1933. Defendant No. 2 did not get immediate possession of the three lands, but after some proceedings he got possession of them on May 12, 1938. The plaintiff brought this suit on June 26, 1941.2. The trial Court found that Rs. 3,000 were due to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 under the mortgage, but he had also a right to redeem defendant No. 2's prior mortgage; and the trial Court further found that on that mort...
Emperor Vs. Mahomed Musa Natali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom163; (1946)48BOMLR761
Sen, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned District Magistrate of Surat in a case in which one Mahomed Musa Natali has been, found guilty of contravening the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bombay Retail Trade Control and Licensing Order, 1942, and sentenced under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, to a fine of Rs. 40. The accused had a shop at a village in the Surat District which was visited by the Distributing Supervisor of the taluka in order to check the accounts of kerosene of which the accused is a licensee. He noticed that there were about sixteen seers of jowar in the shop and thereafter he made further inquiries and checked the accounts of the accused and found entries regarding the sale of jowar and other foodgrains made by the accused, who had no license for such sale. Accordingly, the accused was prosecuted. But all that was stated in the charge-sheet submitted by the police against him was that he had sold without a licence certain quantities of jowar to...
Shankar Narayan Vs. the Barsi Light Railway Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom390; (1947)49BOMLR178
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a test suit filed by a pleader of Pandharpur to recover Rs. 17-11-0 by way of damages for discomfort and worry caused to him when he had to travel in a Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle of the Barsi Light Railway Company from Kurduwadi to Pandharpur to attend the Kartiki fair in November 1939. The plaintiff purchased a third class concession ticket from Dhulia to Pandharpur on November 20, 1939, and travelled by the G.I.P. Railway as far as Kurduwadi, and there he had to change over to the Barsi Light Railway; but he found that there was no room in any of the third class compartments and he was asked to sit in a goods wagon described as 'Pilgrim Traffic Vehicle'. He further found that that vehicle was marked with the words 'bags only' and was overcrowded. He then made a complaint to the respective Station Masters at every station on the way as far as Pandharpur and took their signatures on a copy of the complaint which he had preserved for himself. He filed ...
Khurshed Mody Vs. Rent Controller
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom46; (1946)48BOMLR565
Chagla, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania. The appellant is the landlady of premises situated at Nepean Sea Road. Respondent No. 2 is her tenant and respondent No. 1 is the Rent Controller of Bombay. It seems that the premises with which we are concerned were let out to respondent No. 2 by the appellant on May 1, 1943, and on July 8, 1943, the appellant gave to respondent No. 2 a notice to quit. That notice to quit was waived and on July 16, 1943, a fresh tenancy agreement was arrived at under which respondent No. 2 agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400 a month. This agreement was carried out up to March, 1945, and respondent No. 2 went on paying rent to his landlady at that rate. On March 8, .1945, respondent No, 2 applied to the Rent Controller to fix the standard rent of the premises which he was occupying, and the Rent Controller on July 9, 1945, fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 270 per month. The appellant then filed this petition both...
Dayabhai Jivabhai Patel Vs. Shana Bana Pagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom190; (1946)48BOMLR627
Kania, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Nadiad. Under a deed dated September 15, 1906(exhibit 34) the properties in dispute were stated to be conveyed to Bai Parsan. That document shows that the consideration for the transfer was previous debts due to the ostensible purchaser. Under a deed dated April 15, 1941, the original plaintiffs purchased the property from Bai Parsan. The plaintiffs allege that they were put in possession of the suit fields on the date of sale by Bai Parsan with the consent of the defendant, who was then Bai Parsan's tenant and who was unwilling to continue as the plaintiffs' tenant. It was alleged that in May, 1941, the defendant entered the said fields without any right and thus dispossessed the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs demanded possession, from the defendant but the defendant contended that the plaintiffs were not the owners but were mortgagees only. It was contended in the written statement that the transaction in favo...
The Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate, Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom166; (1946)48BOMLR537
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal. The question submitted for the Court's opinion is in these terms:Whether in the circumstances of this case income derived by the assessee from sale of gur manufactured from sugarcane is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) (b) of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, so as to be exempt from taxation under Section 4(3) (viii) of the Act 2. The question arises in respect of the manufacture of gur by the assessee-company, which is a joint stock company and has erected a sugar factory. It owns large areas of land on which sugar-cane is grown. Section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act defines agricultural income (omitting immaterial parts) as follows:'Agricultural income' means-...,(b) any income derived from ... land by....(ii) the performance by a cultivator ... of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator ... to render the produce raised by h...
Bai Savita Vs. Girjashankar Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR847
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is about the construction of a will of one Sadashiv Laxmiram Bhatt who died on May 13, 1939, leaving a will dated April 23, 1939. He left behind him his wife Bai Shiva and his daughter Bai Savita who was married to one Tripurashankar Shiva shankar. After referring to these relatives and giving the description of his moveable and immoveable properties, he proceeded to state as follows in exhibit 27:I appoint my wife Bai Shiva waras of all this because Bai Shiva stays with me and she serves me very well and I have full faith that in future also she will serve me very well and hence by this will I make my wife Bai Shiva waras of all the properties, moveable and immoveable, after my death.2. The testator then stated that during his lifetime he was full owner of this property and thus entitled to add to or decrease it. But that after his death, all the properties, moveable and immoveable, and all the dues that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »