Mumbai Court October 1947 Judgments
Shankar Ramkrishna Dandekar Vs. Daga Tanaji Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR610
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings. The appellant obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on February 27, 1943, and he obtained a final decree on June 21, 1944. On December 6, 1944, he presented a darkhast for execution of his decree. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 66, on January 12, 1945. The judgment-debtor failed to appear in answer to the notice and a proclamation was ordered to issue on April 6, 1945, and the sale was fixed on December 17, 1945. On that date the judgment-debtor appeared and applied to the Court that being an agriculturist he should be allowed to satisfy the decree by paying instalments. The executing Court took the view that it was not open to the judgment-debtor to raise a contention about his status at that stage of the proceedings and he dismissed the application of the judgment-debtor. In appeal the learned District Judge took the contrary view. The learned District Judge has relied on two decisio...
Tag this Judgment!M. and Vs. Rupchand Jitaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1950Bom155
Jahagirdar, J.1. The facts out of which this application arises are simple and undisputed.2. Opponents Nos. 1-3 filed Suit no. 733 of 1944 in the Small Causes Court at Poona against opponent No. 4 who is an employee of the Madras & Southern Mahratra Railway on a monthly salary of Rs. 32 to recover a sum of money. In the said suit a decree by consent of parties was passed on 5th June 1944. The decree is in the following terms :'The defendant should pay Rs. 90 and all costs of the suit to the plaintiff at Rs. 2 instalment per month. The plaintiff is at liberty to recover his amount from the salary of the defendant at Rs. 2 per month by an attachment to that affect.'Opponents 1-3 applied for execution of the said decree and prayed for an order directing the applicant, i. e., M. & S. M. Railway Company, to withhold Rs. 2 every mouth from the salary of opponent No. 4 until the decree was satisfied on the basis of the consent decree and to remit the same to the Court. The Court issued the or...
Tag this Judgment!Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Vs. Rupchand Jitaji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR1020a
Jahagirdar, J.1. The facts out of which this application arises are simple and undisputed.2. Opponents Nos. 1-3 filed Suit No. 733 of 3 944 in the Small Causes Court at Poona against opponent No. 4 who ii an employee of the Madras & Southern Mahratta Railway on a monthly salary of Rs. 82 to recover a sum of money. In the said suit a decree by consent of parties was passed on June 5, 1944. The decree is in the following terms;-The defendant should pay Rs. 90 and all costs of the suit to the plaintiff at Rs. 2 instalment per month. The plaintiff is at liberty to recover his amount from the salary of the defendant at Rs. 2 per month by an attachment to that effect.Opponents Nos. 1-3 applied for execution of the said decree and prayed for an order directing the applicant, i.e. M. & S.M. Railway Company, to withhold Rs. 2 every month from the salary of opponent No. 4 until the decree was satisfied on the basis of the consent decree and to remit the same to the Court. The Court issued the or...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR156
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. Accused No. 1, which is a limited company, and accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are the directors of that company, were charged under Section 134(4) of the Indian Companies Act, and the learned Additional Stipendiary. Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, acquitted them, and from that order of acquittal Government have come in appeal.2. The facts on which the prosecution was founded are not in dispute. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos, 2, 3, 4 and 5 had failed, as required by Section 134(4) of the Indian Companies Act, to file with the Registrar of Companies three copies of the balance-sheet and accounts of the company for the year 1944. It is common ground that no general meeting of the company has been called at which the balances-sheet and the profit and loss account for the year 1944 have been laid. Turning to Section 134(1) it provides that after the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account have been laid before the company at a general meeting thre...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Pestonji Pir Vs. Sorabji Dadabhoy Tata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR115
Coyajee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Chagla in a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for ejectment and for rent and compensation for use and occupation. The suit is filed on the ground that the defendant had made himself obnoxious by a series of acts which amounted to nuisance, and a certificate to that effect of the Rent Controller together with a certificate of the Collector hearing on appeal therefrom have been annexed to the plaint. The Controller, after hearing evidence, came to the conclusion that the standard rent of these premises was Rs. 110 per month, although on the relevant date under the Act the rent paid, according to the plaintiffs respondents, was Rs. 40 per month plus services to be rendered by a relation of his, one Mrs. Khambatta. The certificate states that the standard rent, according to the Controller, is Rs. 110 per month, and the Controller also comes to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant is guilty of creat...
Tag this Judgment!Govindram Seksaria Vs. Edward Radbone
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR561
Morton, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated December 4, 1944, made in its appellate jurisdiction, setting aside the decree of that Court dated April 10, 1944, made in its original jurisdiction, and giving judgment for the respondent for Rs, 99,043. The history of the case begins with a contract made on September 9, 1938, between the first appellants of the one part and Francke Werke A.Q. of Bremen, Germany, and Hansa (India) Trading Company Limited of Bombay (therein and hereinafter referred to as 'the sellers') of the other part. By the contract the first appellants agreed to buy, and the sellers agreed to sell, certain machinery with all the accessories, as specified in schedule A to the contract, for a complete oil refining and hydrogenating plant.2. The relevant terms of the contract ma,y be summarised as follows :(i) By clause 1 it was provided that the delivery by the sellers was to consist of the machinery, etc. specified in sch....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, N.W.F. and Delhi Provinces Vs. the Tribune ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR566
Simonds, J.1. This appeal is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated March 28, 1944, which was delivered on a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Punjab, N.W.F. and Delhi Provinces, under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) pursuant to a mandamus issued by the same Court on April 8, 1941.2. The appeal raises somewhat complicated questions of procedural and substantive law and it is necessary to state the facts at some length.3. The respondent, the Tribune Trust, which will generally be referred to as 'the respondent,' was created by one Sardar Dayal Singh in the year 1898 and it appears to have been assessed to, and to have paid, income-tax on the income, profits or gains of its property, from the year 1917-18 to the year 1931-32. But in respect of its assessment for the year 1932-88 it raised an objection on the ground that it was exempt from taxation by virtue of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act alrea...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Vishwanath Sulakhe Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR133
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant in the first of these two appeals brought a suit against respondent No. 1 (the Secretary of State for India in Council) and other defendants for a declaration in respect of, and for possession of, six hissas of land in three survey numbers, and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 105 alleged to have been illegally recovered by defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants in Second Appeal No. 451 of 1944 are defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in the first suit and are cousins of the plaintiff in the same suit. Their plaint is similar to that of the appellant in second appeal No. 401 of 1944. The two suits were tried together, and there is one judgment of each of the two lower Courts in respect of them. I shall refer in the following judgment, as the plaintiff and the defendants respectively, to the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit out of which second appeal No. 401 of 1944 arises. The material facts are these. The lands in suit were given as kazi inam lands to the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Krishnaji Gopal Brahme
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR175
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an application in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the release of the petitioner, Krishnaji Gopiil Brahme, who has teen kept under detention by an order of the District Magistrate of East Khandesh dated August 5,1947. The order was made in exercise of the powers delegated to him under Section 21 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. Under that section:The provincial Government may by order direct that any power or duty, which is conferred or imposed on the Provincial Government, shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, be exercised or discharged by any officer or authority subordinate to it, not lower in rank than a Deputy Commissioner of Police in Greater Bombay, or the District Magistrate, or Additional District Magistrate elsewhere.2. The order of delegation is in these terms and is dated April 26, 1947:In the exercise of the powers conferred...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rustom Ardeshir Banaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR821
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This revisional application raises some interesting questions affecting the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to try the case in pursuance of the charge-sheet submitted by the prosecution against the accused. The material facts which give rise to the said points of law are not in dispute. The petitioner is a graduate in law and had been employed as a Legal Assistant to the Director of Civil Supplies Accounts, Bombay. As such he is a public servant. The police received information from one Shivlal that as such public servant the petitioner was demanding a reward of Rs. 100 from Shivlal for having done an official act. The said Shivlal had entered into a contract with the Government of Bombay, Food Department, in January 1947, for the supply of certain commodities and had deposited Rs. 1,000 with the Government for fulfilment of the said contract. Shivlal was, however, unable to perform the contract and had applied to the petitioner for cancellation of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »