Mumbai Court December 1947 Judgments
Ghulba Lahanu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ289
ORDERHidayatullah, J.1. This case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge, Wardha.2. Two persons (who have been shown as non-applicants here) were held liable to pay compensation under Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act. The learned Magistrate who tried the case ordered as follows:As regards sentence, the accused have by their illegal act caused the complainant co suffer a loss of Rs. 109-8-0. Each of the two accused U, therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a mouth. Out of the fine if recovered the complainant shall be paid Ha. SO as compensation under y. 545 (I) tb), Criminal P. C.He had previously 'convicted' these persons whom he described as 'accused' under Section 22 of the Act.3. The learned Magistrate's approach to the case is all wrong. There is no question of a 'fine' and much less of imprisonment in lieu of fine. The person who is held liable under Section 22 of the Act is not 'an accused' nor is he 'convicted...
Tag this Judgment!indra Singh Vs. Shiavax Cawasji Cambata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom347; (1948)50BOMLR203
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai, and the short facts leading up to this appeal are that the appellants are the tenants of the respondents, and on March 80, 1940, the respondents gave to the appellants notice to quit terminating on April 30,1946. On September 8,1946, the respondents obtained from the Rent Controller a certificate that these premises were required by them reasonably and bona fide for their own use. On September 18, 1946, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Collector from the decision of the Controller, and on October 9, 1946, the Collector gave a decision contrary to the view taken by the Controller and setting aside the certificate given by the Controller. On November 12, 1946, the respondents filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Their grievance was that the Collector had decided without hearing them and his decision was contrary to the rules and principles of natural justice. Mr. Justice Bhagwati ordered the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Hirji Shivram Vyas Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom417; (1948)50BOMLR210
Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the father of one Maganlal Hirji Vyas hereinafter referred to as the detenue. The respondent is the Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay.2. On October 17, 1947, the detenue was arrested by the C.I.D., Bombay. On October 18, 1947, a remand application was made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate by the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. The remand application was made in reference to eight accused persons one of them being the accused, who were arrested between October 3, 1947, and October 17, 1947. The offences with which they were charged were under Sections 302, 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. The remand application states as follows:During the recent communal riots in the City, there have been several bomb outrages in which many persons lost their lives and others sustained serious injuries. The enquiries were taken over by the C.I.D. On October 8, 1947, in the early hours of the morning ther...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Dhondo Kulkarni Vs. Vishnu Keshav Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR168
Dixit, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and the facts giving rise to the application are briefly these.2. The applicant claiming to be the adopted son of one Dhondo Govind Kulkarni filed a suit to recover by partition possession of his half share in the suit property. The plaintiff's claim was opposed on several grounds. It was contended that the plaintiff was not adopted in fact, that the plaintiff's adoption was invalid and that in any case the suit property, with the exception of two houses and two lands, was not joint family property. The plaintiff valued his claim in the Court of first instance at Rs. 12,012-8-0. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved his adoption but his adoption was invalid. The trial Court also held that the whole of the property in suit was joint family property. But since the plaintiff's adoption was invalid, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. From that decision the plaintiff filed F.A. No. 169...
Tag this Judgment!Odhavji Lakhamshi Vs. Sakarchand Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR598
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very short question and has been referred to this full bench by my brother Gajendragadkar J, and Mr. Justice Macklin. The facts leading up to the appeal are that on June 28,1942, the respondent applied for execution of the decree as the assignee and on June 24, 1942, the executing Court made an order for attachment. On July 3,1942, the attachment was levied. The judgment-debtor came to know about the levying of the attachment and he filed a written statement raising various contentions against the assignment of the decree and challenging the title of the assignee to maintain the execution proceedings. His objections were heard and the learned Judge held against him and came to the conclusion that the assignment was good and that the title of the assignee to maintain execution proceedings had been established. On that he issued a notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, with regard to the attached property. It is from this order that this appeal is p...
Tag this Judgment!Sankalchand Kuberdas Jingar Vs. Joitaram Ranchhod Kumbhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1947
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR156
Jahagirdar, J.1. The facts of the case are as follows :2. The plaintiff was the owner of the suit properties. He had sold them to different persons but had continued to remain in possession. The defendant purchased the properties in the name of his minor son for Rs. 1,500 from the plaintiff's vendees. On October 29, 1934, there was an agreement, exhibit 42, between the defendant and the plaintiff, under which the defendant agreed to sell the property for Rs. 2,000 to be paid at any time within three years with interest at Rs. 0-14-6 per cent, per month. If the money was not paid, the defendant was at liberty to deal with the property in any manner he liked. On the same day, the plaintiff executed a rent note in defendant's favour in respect of the properties purchased by him, agreeing to pay Rs. 17-8-0 per month. On July 20, 1937, the defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent and give vacant possession within 15 days. On August 14, 1937, the p...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector and Superintendent of Stamps Vs. Laxmibai Saheb Angre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR288
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 61(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and the question raised is whether certain documents referred to by the Collector and Superintendent of Stamps are leases within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp Act.2. In order that a document should be a lease one of the requirements is that it should contain an undertaking in writing to pay rent for immoveable property, and looking at all these documents we have no doubt that they do contain the requisite undertaking and therefore are leases within the meaning of that expression. This position has not been challenged by the respondents before us except Mr. Kapasi who contests the decision as far as the document dated July 28, 1942, is concerned. That is a letter written by the tenant Mahomed Afzalkhan to his landlord Mahomedbhoy I.M. Rowjee. In that letter he first mentions that at a personal interview between him and his landlord the rent was settled at Rs. 68 and then he goes on...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mohanlal Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR158
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, II Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, convicting the accused under Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946 read with Clause 12(1) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1945, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The case against the accused was that he sold to one Mrs. Gobhai a piece of Tootal drill cloth atthe rate of Rs. 5-14-0 whereas the control price was Rs. 3-7-4 and he failed to give a cash memo in respect of this sale. The prosecution case was sought to be established by the evidence of Mrs. Gobhai herself, a lady by the name of Miss Sidhwa who accompanied her and the panch witness. The learned Magistrate in a very careful judgment has considered the evidence of these witnesses, has taken into consideration the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the defence and has come to the conclusion that...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Mohammed Fateh Nasib Vs. Swarup Chand Hukum Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR632
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated May 28, 1941, confirming a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, Alipore, dated May 31, 1934.2. Respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as ' the plaintiff ') instituted this suit on July 18, 1931, claiming a declaration of title to the property in suit Nos. 2, 2/1, 2/2, and 3, Rowland Road, Calcutta, and possession of the premises other than No. 2/2, Rowland Road, of which the plaintiff was already in possession. The present appellant was the first defendant, and he claimed that the property in suit was wakf property, and that he was the Mutwalli of the wakf estates having been appointed to that position by the will of Abdul Alim Abed (who will be referred to hereafter as 'Abed') the alleged former Mutwalli. The second respondent was the second defendant, and claimed to be in possession under a lease granted by the first defendant of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasanali Vs. Mansoorali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR389
Porter, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces and Berar, Nagpur, dated October 25, 1984, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Burhanpur, dated January 2,1931.2. The question for determination is one which concerns the right to the use of certain waqf property belonging to members of a Moslem community in India, known as Daudi Bohras, situate in the village of Shadra, near the town of Burhanpur in the Central Provinces, and, in particular, the question as to the right of the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to interfere with the access to and use of such property. A further question as to whether the appellants are entitled to sue in a representative capacity must also be considered.3. The property consists of an enclosed area of land in which are situate the mausolea of three saints, two mosques, two jamatkhanas (dining hall), a dewankhana (...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›