Mumbai Court November 1947 Judgments
In Re: Anant Mahadev Mandekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR590
Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the editor of an English fortnightly called 'new Spark' and he is a close friend of one Anant Mahadeo Mandekar, the detenu in this case, who is hereinafter referred to as the detenu. Prior to his detention, the detenu was a record clerk in the New Kaiser-i-Hind Mills. In pursuance of a detention order dated May 12, 1947, issued against him by respondent No. 1, who is the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, the detenu has been detained since May 15, 1947, under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. The petition is filed for an order that the detenu be set at liberty.Section 2 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, provides as follows :2. (1) The Provincial Government may, if it is satisfied that any person is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, the maintenance of public order, or the tranquillity of the Province or any part thereof, make an order-(a) directing that he be ...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Vasudeo Chitaley Vs. Raghunath Ganesh Thakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR226
Dixit, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a suit, and in order to understand the nature of the application it is necessary to mention some introductory facts. Those facts as recited in the application are as follows :2. The petitioner is a resident of Nagpur, while the opponent resides at Poona. On October 17, 1942, an agreement was executed in Bombay by five persons including the opponent and that agreement was accepted by the petitioner. On July 5, 1946, the petitioner filed a Suit No. 820 of 1946 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Poona, claiming a certain declaration and an injunction-a declaration that the opponent had no right to say that Rs. 10,000 were deposited with the petitioner and an injunction restraining the opponent from demanding Us. 10,000 and from filing a suit against the petitioner for the same. It appears that this application was supported by an affidavit which was declared on behalf of the petitioner as long ago as December 7, 1946, thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal Jamnadas Dani Vs. Birbhangiri Bisheshargiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR477
Desai, J.1. By an agreement in writing dated January 16, 1947, the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiffs the land hereditaments and premises situate at Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay, at or for the price of Rs. 2,25,000. On or about July 17, 1947, the plaintiffs' attorneys served requisitions on the vendor's title and the defendant's attorneys answered the said requisitions on or about August 8, 1947. The answers to the material requisitions are set out in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the plaint which it is not necessary for me to set out in detail in this judgment. The plaintiffs submit that doubts have arisen as to whether there is a custom, as alleged by the defendant, by which the defendant has full and absolute right and authority to sell or dispose of the property agreed to be sold and that his chela or disciple has no right or interest in the said property and is not entitled to challenge alienation of the said property by the defendant. The plaintiffs further submit that doubts hav...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Malhari Ramaji Chikate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR188
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This application raises a further question whether it is open to a detenue to ask for a review of an order already made under Section 491, or in other words whether successive applications can he made for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a detenue. The application on behalf of this detenue was dismissed by Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha and Mr. Justice Jahagirdar on October 9, 1947.2. It is now well established that the Courts in India have no longer the jurisdiction to issue the common law writ of habeas corpus and to exercise the powers which the Courts in England exercise. The powers of the Courts are now controlled and circumscribed by Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code which has taken the place of the old common law writ of habeas corpus. If that be so, then we must look to the Criminal Procedure Code for the procedure to be followed once an order is made under Section 491.3. Section 369 of the Code contains a prohibition against altering or reviewing...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rajdhar Kalu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom334; (1948)50BOMLR183
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the release of the detenue, Rajdhar Kalu Patil, He was detained by Government by an order issued on June 5, 1947, under Section 2 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 (Bom. Act VI of 1947). On the same day under Section 8 the Government informed the detenue of the grounds on which the order of detention had been made against him and these grounds are:(1) that you are an active member of the organisation at Amalner.(2) that you threaten public peace and tranquillity of the' Amalner town by using violent methods.(3) that you have been carrying on subversive propaganda among the people to prepare and use illegal and violent ways.2. The order of Government itself is ex facie good and has not been 'seriously challenged by Mr. Patel for the applicant. But what has been contended before us. is that inasmuch as two of the three grounds furnished to the detenue are bad, notwithstandin...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Durgaparsad Bakhale Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR588
Desai, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the wife of one Durgaprasad Prasan-nakumar Bakhale. The respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. The petition states that the respondent got the said Durgaprasad Prasannakumar Bakhale arrested on September 9, 1947, when the house of the said Durgaprasad was searched, but nothing objectionable was found by the police in the house. Nevertheless the respondent detained the said Durgaprasad at the Esplanade police lock-up and on September 11, 1947, the said Durgraprasad was served with a notice dated September 11, 1947, under Section 3 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act of 1947 and that he has now been detained at the Worli Temporary Prison under Order No. 486 of 1947 purporting to have been issued by the respondent under the said Act. The notice dated September 11, 1947, which was served on Durgaprasad reads as follows :That you have instigated and actively helped by providing funds to suspect Laxman and his accomplices for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sorab Khudaram Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR181
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, Bombay. He convicted the accused under Section 18 read with Section 7 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the accused was found in possession of 165 cases of foreign liquor on March 13, 1946, and the case for the prosecution was that under Section 7 of the Ordinance XXXV of 1943 that quantity was more than necessary for the reasonable needs of the accused and his family for a period of three months.3. It is not disputed by Mr. Kolah for the accused that if the Ordinance applied, being in possession of 165 cases of foreign liquor certainly offended against Section 7 of the Ordinance. It cannot be said that such a large quantity of foreign liquor was necessary for the reasonable needs of the accused and his family. B...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Faiba Vs. Chudasma Jorubha Gajubha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1949Bom242; (1949)51BOMLR140
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This appeal from the judgment and decree of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, in civil suit No. 893 of 1937 raises, on the findings made by the lower Court and submissions made to us, an important question of law. The dispute related to an undivided one-anna share in the Talukdari estate of the village of Kharad in Dhandhuka taluka of the Ahmedabad District. The relationship of the parties to the suit is shown by the genealogy in the judgment of the lower Court. The ancestor of the parties was one Akhabhai who died leaving two sons, Abhesang and Dehabhai. Although the matter was in dispute before the trial Court, it is now conceded, as found by the learned trial Judge, that Abhesang and Dehabhai were divided and that the property in suit came to the share of Dehabhai. Dehabhai had a son, Dajibhai. Dajibhai died leaving two sons, Ramabhai and Balubhai. In the trial Court a question arose whether Ramabhai and Balubhai were joint or divided. It ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, the Spring Mills, Ltd. Vs. G.D. Ambekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR148
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This civil revision application raises an important question of jurisdiction of this Court to revise under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a decision of the 'Authority' under the Payment of Wages Act. The applicant is a manager of the Spring Mills, Limited, and as such responsible for the payment of wages to the employees of his Mills. In the year 1945 the Mills used to work overtime, and certain of its employees did overtime for which they were paid by the applicant the amount of remuneration according to Section 47 of the Factories Act, which provides that where a worker in any factory works for more than 60 hours in a week or where a worker in a factory other than a seasonal factory works for more than 10 hours in a day, he shall be entitled in respect of the overtime worked to pay at the rate of 1 1/2 times the ordinary rates of pay. By Sub-section (2) of that section it is further provided that where a worker in a factory other than a seasonal factory wo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›