Mumbai Court April 1947 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.
Mohanlal Sohanlal Vs. Pannalal Jankidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom133; (1947)49BOMLR736
Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants, as kartas of a joint Hindu family, from a judgment of Mr, Justice Bhagwati, dated March 27, 1946, whereby it was ordered that the plaintiff firm, who is described in the title to these proceedings, as 'carrying on business as commission agents', was entitled to have an account taken, subject to certain allowances and to giving credit for payments made on account of:the actual cost price of the said 45 and 47 bales in aggregate 92 bales belonging to the defendants' joint family firms of Mohanlal Sohanlal and Mohanlal Kezriwal and destroyed on account of the fire due to the explosion as mentioned in the plaint as also their commission costs charge and expenses in respect thereof rightly incurred by the plaintiffs as such commission agents of the defendants and that they are entitled to an indemnity from the defendants in respect of the said amount.2. The defendants filed a counterclaim to the action whereby they claimed credit in respect...
Godavari Sugar Mills, Ltd. Vs. Shakuntala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR791
Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment, dated April 7, 1946, of Mr. M.J. Merchant, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, sitting as Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the only matter which we have to consider in this appeal is the quantum of the compensation awarded.2. Under the fourth schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a table is set out with regard to the amount of compensation payable on death, and this table is referential to the amount of the monthly wages of the workman concerned. In this case the Commissioner awarded the sum of Rs. 1,350 on the basis that the deceased workman's wages were more than Rs. 40 and not more than Rs. 45. 'Wages' are defined in Sub-section 2 (1)(m) of the Act as including any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than travelling expenses i and other matters with which we are not concerned.3. The finding of fact in the Commissioner's judgment is in para. 7:The basic pay ...
Aliyarkhan Amiyatkhan Vs. Rambhau Motiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR793
Chagla, J.1. The facts leading up to this Letters Patent Appeal are that one Devchand, a Khoja Mahomedan, died on January 26, 1927, leaving a widow Lakshmibai and leaving a daughter by name Hirabai. By his will Devchand gave the whole of his property to Hirabai. Hirabai died on July 27, 1931, having prior thereto made a will on July 1, 1931, and she bequeathed her property to her husband. The husband sold the property in suit to the plaintiff. Lakshmibai, the widow of Devchand, after the death of Hirabai, executed a deed of gift and by that deed of gift she gave the property in suit to the trustees of a mosque at Rasalpur. The trustees went in possession of the property and the plaintiff filed this suit for possession.2. The defendant's contention was that Devchand being a Mahomedan, his testamentary capacity was restricted and he could not dispose of the whole of his property by will. The plaintiff's contention was that he being a Khoja, in matters of testate succession he was governe...
KurbanhusseIn Mahamadalli Vs. Husseinbhai Mithabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom101; (1947)49BOMLR731
Chagla, J.1. The facts necessary for a proper appreciation of the question referred to us are that the suit was filed for possession of certain property and the title the plaintiff relied upon was an award dated March 1, 1925, under which the arbitrator partitioned certain properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that as it was not filed within six years of the making of the award the plaintiff's claim was out of time and the lower appellate Court also taking the same view dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The matter came before Mr. Justice Macklin and my learned brother Bavdekar, and it was sought to be argued before them that the proper article of the Indian Limitation Act that applied was not Article 120 but Article 144. It was contended that the plaintiff's suit was not to enforce the award but a suit for possession of property on the strength of the award and it fell not under Article 120 but Article 144, upon which Mr. Justice Macklin and my learned brother Ba...
Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad Vs. Jayantilal Chhotalal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom98; (1947)49BOMLR724
Chagla, J.1. The suit from which this reference to a full bench arises was filed by the plaintiff against the Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad in respect of a contract which the Municipality had entered into with him for the purpose of cleaning the streets of Ahmedabad. The plaintiff claimed various sums due to him under the contract. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim in part. From that decision an appeal was preferred to this Court and in that appeal the only question that survived was with regard to a sum of Rs. 4,100, which the Municipality purported to forfeit under the terms of the contract. This sum was deposited by the plaintiff when the contract was entered into, and the question that arose with regard to this sum was whether the plaintiff's suit was maintainable having regard to the provisions of Section 206 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. The appeal came before Mr. Justice Macklin and my learned brother Bavdekar and they referred the following question...
Rajaram Vithal Sutar Vs. Ramchandra Pandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom226; (1948)50BOMLR45
Chagla, J.1. The facts leading up to this second appeal are that one Gamabai executed a mortgage on July 24, 1895, in favour of one Khandu. In 1903 Khandu filed a suit against Gamabai and her husband. This suit was filed on the allegation that the property had been sold to Khandu by Gamabai. Gamabai contended in that suit that, although in form it was a sale-deed, the document was really a mortgage. The Court accepted the contention of Gamabai, and a decree was passed on June 16, 1904, by which Gamabai was declared to be entitled to retain possession of the property, if she paid a specified sum of interest to Khandu. In default, Khandu was to get possession of the property as mortgagee.2. In August 1904 Gamabai filed a suit for redemption. While the suit was pending, Gamabai died, and her heirs were not brought on record, with the result that the suit abated in June 1905. The present suit was filed by the grandsons of Gamabai for redemption, and the only question that survives in this ...
Emperor Vs. Valli Mohammad Sheikh Mahammad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR618
Chagla, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the learned Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, recommending that the order of conviction and sentence and also the order of forfeiture passed by the learned Resident Magistrate, First Class, Bhusaval, be set aside. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each and in default simple imprisonment for seven days. He also directed that the money found in the raid with the accused and seized by the police should be forfeited to Government.2. It seems that the learned Magistrate who tried the accused was also the Magistrate who issued a warrant under Section 6, and it seems to us that we should accept the reference and set aside the order on a ground which is one of considerable public importance. It seems to us wrong in principle that the Magistrate who issues the warrant under Section 6 should be the same judicial authority who should try the ac...
Baswantrao Bajirao Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ181
Bose, J.1. My learned brother has examined the evidence and the law with his usual care and industry and I do not feel I can usefully add anything to his research. I agree with all his conclusions.2. I am satisfied, for the reasons given by my learned brother, that the accused killed his two wives. I am satisfied that he was not legally insane though there is no doubt that he was not a normal man and that he was not then in a normal state of mind, but I am clear that he knew the nature of his act and knew that he was doing wrong.3. It is clear to me that no one else could have killed the two women. Except for the little girl Shakuntala there was no one else in the house at the time, Clearly no stranger could have entered the house and committed these murders without the accused knowing it. Also, had that been the case, his conduct thereafter would have been different. He would have been horrified and would at once have raised a hue and cry and would have sought assistance.4. Had his be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›