Mumbai Court January 1947 Judgments
In Re: East Africa Hardware Company, in Liquidation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR271
Tendolkar, J.1. The third question, as to the necessity for registration, arises in this manner. Section 109 of the Indian Companies Act states,Every mortgage or charge created after the commencement of this Act by a company and being either...(c) a mortgage or a charge, not being a pledge on any moveable property of the company except stock-in-trade; shall, so far as any security on the company's property or undertaking is thereby conferred be void against the liquidator....2. The question for consideration is, what is the meaning to be attached to Clause (e) of this section The clause read with the punctuation as it exists in the statute hardly makes sense. I have not heard of such a thing as a 'pledge on a property.' One ordinarily talks of 'of a pledge of property', but a mortgage or charge is 'on' a property. It appears to me that in the punctuation of this clause one must read after the word 'pledge' a comma in order that the clause may make sense. Thus read, the clause would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Badhu Jana Mahajan Vs. Shree Satpanth Sansthan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR195
Dixit, J.1. His Lordship after stating the facts, which are summarised above, continued as follows : On behalf of the plaintiff his learned advocate has argued two points. It is contended, first, that the Leva Satpanthi Samaj had authorised the loan resulting in the passing of the promissory note and of the agreement to execute the mortgage, and it is argued next that the promissory note and the agreement to execute the mortgage were justified by legal necessity. Before dealing with these two points it may be convenient to set out the conclusions to which the learned trial Judge has come. He said that it was clear that Shree Satpanthi Sansthan was treated as belonging to Leva Satpanthi community, that he was convinced that Shree Satpanthi Sansthan, Faizpur, belonged to Leva Satpanthi Samaj or Leva Satpanthi community and that other non-Leva Patidar Satpanthis had no right over it. He also concluded that Shree Satpanthi Sansthan was not a Devasthan but that the same was property belongi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Yakubji Karimji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Bom364; (1947)49BOMLR397
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. We have before us six petitions, under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, presented on behalf of six persons, who are under detention at the Ahmedabad Central Jail, alleging that the detenus are unlawfully detained, and praying for an order of this Court for their discharge. It is not suggested that the detained persons have committed any offence or that there is any question of their standing their trial, but the justification for the detentions, urged on behalf of Government, is, that in each case, an order has been made by the District Magistrate of Ahmedabad, pursuant to the power given in that behalf by Section 46B of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890. This section as also Sections 46A, 46C and 46D are new, having been introduced by the Bombay District Police (Amendment) Act, 1946, which came into operation on September 30, 1946. Section 46B gives to a District Magistrate certain formidable powers, exercisable within his District after the Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Yakub Khan Vs. King Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR567
Thankerton, J.1. The jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is purely statutory, resting on the Judicial Committee Act of 1838 and the amending Acts. The material provision is in Section 3 of the Act of 1833, which reads as follows:All Appeals or Complaints in the Nature of Appeals whatever, which, either by virtue of this Act, or of any Law, Statute or Custom, may be brought before His Majesty or His Majesty in Council from or in respect of the Determination, Sentence, Rule or Order of any Court, Judge or Judicial Officer, and all such Appeals as are now pending and unheard, shall from and after the passing of this Act be referred by His Majesty to the said Judicial Committee of His Privy Council, and...such Appeals, Causes, and Matters shall be heard by the said Judicial Committee, and a Report or Recommendation thereon shall be, made to His Majesty in Council for His Decision thereon as therein provided.2. Where it is sought to bring an appeal from an Order of a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yamanappa Joteppa Gosavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Bom467
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revisional application, with regard to the conviction and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment passed on the three accused, under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, by Mr. J.R. Nazareth, the Assistant Sessions Judge of Belgaum, on February 25, 1946. There was an appeal by the accused to Mr. Honavar, the learned Sessions Judge, which he dismissed on May 7, 1946. Accordingly, the matter comes before us in revision.2. The principal point taken by Mr. Lokur on behalf of the accused is a submission made under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that the accused have been previously tried and acquitted in respect of the offence with which they are now charged. It must be said at once, that, this submission is only advanced on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 3; because, accused No. 2 was not tried in Sessions Case No. 149 of 1943, which is the case craved in aid by accused Nos. 1 and 3. Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure C...
Tag this Judgment!Basayya Shivabasayya Vs. Baslingayya Channayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR775
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision in a second appeal by Mr. Justice Lokur arising out of a suit which was filed by a son to set aside an alienation made by his father. The plaintiff's father Channayya, defendant No. 3, and his two brothers, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, were the sons of one Shivbasayya, and Channayya was adopted into another family. After his adoption he made on July 29, 1918, a gift of certain property which he had inherited in his adopted family to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Be had no son at the time: but his wife gave birth to the plaintiff on March 28, 1919. This suit was filed on March 11, 1940, within three years after the plaintiff attained the age of 18 years. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff had not been conceived on the date of the gift, that the suit was time-barred under Article 126 of the first schedule to the Indian limitation Act, and that he could not claim the benefit of Section 6 or Section 8 of the Act. The Courts of facts...
Tag this Judgment!Adiveppa Babu Vs. Veerbhadrappa Baswantappa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom111
Macklin, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with the question of the factum of adoption proceeded as follows]:2. It is true that the only evidence put forward in the case was the judgment under which Baswant was convicted and sentenced. In strict law that is not enough to prove that he murdered Babu; the utmost that it proves is that he was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Babu. But it is convenient for the sake of argument to treat Baswant as the proved murderer of Babu; and on that assumption we propose to deal with the argument that Baswant, and through Baswant his adopted son, is disqualified from partition. A suggestion was made that the adoption itself would be invalid on the ground that a murderer cannot adopt at all. But there does not seem to be any foundation for such a suggestion. The principal contention is that a murderer suffers from the same sort of disability as a person who is insane or blind, and that a person suffering under any disability as regards successio...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Jusab Abdulla Vs. Fatmabai Jusab Abdulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom53; (1947)49BOMLR505
Chagla, J.1. This case raises a very short but very interesting and important point of Mahomedan law. The facts really are not in dispute. One Jusab Abdulla died on October 7, 1919, leaving him surviving his widow Fatmabai who is the defendant in this case, a daughter Khatoobai and the plaintiff who was a son by his predeceased wife.2. On August 6, 1925, Fatmabai, the defendant, and Khatoobai purchased an immoveable property. It is not disputed that Khatoobai contributed Rs. 10,000 and the defendant Rs. 7,500 towards the purchase of this property. The mother and daughter obtained a conveyance in their favour which is a conveyance in English form drafted by a solicitor of this Court, and the particular provision in this conveyance to which attention might be drawn is the habendum clause which lays down the interest in the property which the mother and the daughter were to enjoy and this is how the habendum clause runs:To have and to hold the hereditaments and premises hereby granted or ...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Amrit Dange Vs. Sir Harsiddhbhai V. Divatia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom20; (1947)49BOMLR468
Bhagwati, J.1. At an election held in 1946 for the seat allotted to the Bombay City and Suburban Textile Unions Constituency in the Bombay Legislative Assembly, the petitioner was declared elected a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. Respondent No. 4 was one of the contesting candidates and be preferred an election petition on June 12, 1946, to His Excellency the Governor of Bombay praying inter alia that His Excellency the Governor be pleased to appoint Commissioners for the trial of the petition, for a declaration that the election of the petitioner was void and for a declaration that he the respondent No. 4 had been duly elected a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly for the constituency. On receipt of the election petition a notification was issued from the Legal Department of the Government of Bombay, which after reciting that the election of the petitioner had been called in question by an election petition duly presented under Rule 110 of the Bombay Legislative Asse...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Usman Haroon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Bom409
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The report of the Chief Presidency Magistrate which we called for by our judgment of December 20, 1946, has now been received and by it and by a circular which has been issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to all his Magistrates it appears that new arrangements have been made for the distribution of magisterial work arising out of the disturbances and that there will now be three Magistrates at the Esplanade Police Court whose duty it will be to try these cases. The cases will go into the lists of these three Magistrates, on a rotation basis depending entirely upon the day upon which any particular case first happens to come before the Court. In our opinion that is a very satisfactory arrangement. We also note that the Chief Presidency Magistrate has sent a copy of our judgment containing our criticism with regard to the variety of sentences for the same offence to all his Magistrates and that the Magistrates have now the question of evolving a system fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »