Mumbai Court August 1947 Judgments
Oscar H. Brown Vs. Nathmal Hirachand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom236; (1947)49BOMLR889
M.C. Chagla, Actiong C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Mr. Justice Bhagwati by which he directed that a writ of certiorari should issue against the appellant, Mr. Oscar Brown, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay.2. The petitioners have a shop in the riot area, and on February 22, 1946, their shop which is on the ground floor of a building was looted. They gave notice of the loss to the insurance company and also made their claim for compensation under Section 45 of the Bombay City Police Act, 1902, before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. Their claim was adjudicated upon by him and he dismissed their claim. The petitioners came before Mr. Justice Bhgawati for a writ of certiorari on the ground that in investigating their claim the learned Chief Presisidency Magistrate had violated the principles of natural justice. What happened before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was this. The question which he had to determine was whether the shop of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Framroze Dadabhoy Madon Vs. Tehmina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR882
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla, dated July 11, 1946, upon an originating summons, raising questions as to the validity of the trusts of a settlement of June 28, 1938, made by Bai Tehmina, who is one of the respondents in this Court. By the settlement Bai Tehmina settled a sum of Rs. 47,000, representing the proceeds of sale of diverse investments, made on her behalf by her father, Dadabhoy Sorabji Madon, upon trusts in favour of herself, for life, and after her decease and subject to a power of appointment, exercisable by will or codicil only, amongst her issue born during her lifetime; in trust for all her children who being sons, 'shall attain the age of 18 or being daughters shall attain that age or marry under that age in equal shares.' In default of issue there is a general power of appointment with regard to part only of the trust funds to be exercised by will or codicil, and, 'subject to the foregoing trusts and powers', the trust...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. P.A. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR160
Sen, J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Nasik, who has submitted the proceedings in criminal case No. 192 of 1946 in the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, wherein one P.A. Joshi is being tried for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code'. The accused made an application to the District Magistrate that the proceedings should be dropped as the previous sanction of the Governor of Bombay Was necessary under the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for his prosecution, and as such sanction had not been obtained in this case. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on April 8, 1946. The accused the reupon filed a criminal revision application in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Nasik and again contended that on the facts of this case the previous sanction of the Governor of Bombay under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. A few material facts bearing on this question may be s...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevdas Karsondas Patel Vs. Mohanlal Bapalal Bahia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR902
Chagla, J.1. This appeal raises a very short question of law. The defendant filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court on a promissory note for Rs. 5,001. That suit was filed as a summary suit. The defendant took out a summons for judgment. On that, the plaintiff appeared to show cause. The matter came before me in chambers and I made an order directing the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 2,500 within a certain time as a condition of his getting leave to defend the suit. The plaintiff did not make the deposit. The result was that an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the defendant on the promissory note. The plaintiff has now filed the present suit from which this appeal arises for a declaration that the promissory note on which the decree was passed was without consideration.2. A preliminary issue was tried before the learned Judge below, whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by res judicata, and the learned Judge took the view that it was so barred and dismissed the plaintiff's ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›