Mumbai Court September 1947 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Sitaram Biniwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR169
Jahagirdhar, J.1. This is a revision application by the applicant against the order of conviction and sentence under Section 10(4) read with Section 10(2) of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939. The facts as alleged by the prosecution are that Manaji Trust owns a number of chawls at Parel and it is managed by one Kalewar, who is a witness in this case. The accused is a munim under Kalewar. His business is to get the rents collected, keep accounts and manage the property. The complainant was formerly residing in one of these Trust chawls, and in May, 1944, he helped one Irayya to get room No. 24 on the 3rd floor, chawl No. 5, in his name and the complainant resided with him. In March, 1946, Irayya gave a writing Ex. 8 to the complainant stating that he had no right to the room and that thenceforward he would live in the room and pay the rent. The room, however, continued to be in the name of Irayya. This arrangement continued till about February, 1947, when Irayya again left for his n...
Tag this Judgment!Sherbanubai Jafferbhoy Vs. Hooseinbhoy Abdoolabhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom292; (1948)50BOMLR89
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr, Justice Tendolkar by which the learned Judge refused to accede to the appellant's petition to set aside an award made by Sir Sajba Rangnekar on August 9, 1946.2. The facts leading up to this appeal are briefly these. Jafferbhoy, the brother of respondent No. 1, died on May 14, 1936, leaving a will dated June 13, 1933, under which he appointed his wife, the petitioner, his brother, respondent No. 1, and his brother's son, respondent No. 2, executrix and executors. Before the death of Jafferbhoy he and Hooseinbhoy, respondent No. 1, were doing business in the name of Abdullabhoy Lalji and Co. and this firm also did business in other names. By Clause 12 of his will Jafferbhoy authorised his executors to carry on the business on behalf of the estate, and pursuant to the directions contained in this clause Hooseinbhoy and the executors of Jafferbhoy agreed to carry on the business. The petitioner then filed a suit for dissolut...
Tag this Judgment!Khorshed Maneck Vs. the Official Trustee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom319; (1948)50BOMLR108
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very short question of construction of a clause in the will of one Jahangir Dinshaw Katelee. Katelee died on December 21, 1937, having prior thereto made a will dated December 18, 1933. He subsequently made a codicil on July 26, 1935, a second codicil on November 1, 1935, and a third codicil on February 7, 1936. The testator left no issue, and in his will and codicil the objects of his bounty were his nieces and other relations. The only question we are concerned with in this originating summons is Clause 11 of the first codicil and Clause 18 of the will which gives certain interest to Tehemina, one of his nieces and after her to her issue. Tehemina herself died on October 9, 1945. She had one son who predeccased her and died on November 9, 1944. She left three daughters surviving, the plaintiff and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is the husband of Tehemina and respondent No. 1 is the Official Trustee.2. Clause 11 of the codicil p...
Tag this Judgment!The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited Vs. Moolji Jai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom272; (1948)50BOMLR49
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellants are a joint stock company and they filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the defendants who were the plaintiffs' managing agents for a very long time, their agency having been terminated on November 21, 1940. In the suit various reliefs were claimed against the defendants. The one with which we are concerned related to certain lands at Jalgaon which stood in the name of the defendants and which the plaintiffs claimed to be of their ownership, having; been acquired according to them by the defendants as plaintiffs' agents and with the funds belonging to the plaintiffs. In respect of these lands the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they belonged to and were the property of the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no beneficial interest therein and also they asked for an order against the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Dhawanji Rawji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ332
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants, Dhanwanji, Moolji and Bhanji, all of Jubbulpore are being prosecuted in the Court of the first Class Magistrate, Sugar under Section 3, Military Stores (Unlawful Possession) ordinance No. XXXIII [33] of 1913 and under Defence of India Rule 81 (41 read with the Pipes Control Order, 1942, and a preliminary objection was-entered in their behalf to have the proceedings' dropped on the ground that the aforesaid Ordinance and the Defence of India Act and the rules-thereunder had lapsed. This objection was rejected by the trial Court, and in revision, the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, who held that the proceedings under the Ordinance could not continue as it had lapsed, found that the prosecution under the Pipes Control Order could continue in virtue of the provisions of Section 2 (a) (vii), and s 5, ordinance XVI ii [18] of 1946. The applicants have now come up in revision to this-Court.2. The Pipes Control Order was issued under Defence of India Rule 81 (2), ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hormazdyar Ardeshir Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR163
Sen, J.1. The appellant has been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 4A and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act of 1887, and sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 500 and Rs. 75 respectively under the two sections. He is the proprietor of a shop named Hormazdyar Cold Drink Depot on Elphinstone Road in Bombay.The case against the accused was as follows. Inspector Kadam and Sub-Inspector Shaikh of the Anti-Gambling Squad, Bombay Police, who were both officer specially authorised underSection 6 of the Act, having received and verified information that satta bets were being received in the said shop, arranged a raid on June 24, 1946. Four different punters were provided with different Sums of money (Rs. 2 or Rs, 3 each) in currency notes of one rupee each, which were marked in the presence of panchas, after which they entered the shop one after another, laid bets on different figures, and then came out of the shop. The police-officers remained on watch at convenient places ou...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Ardeshir Namdar Vs. F. Ruttonshaw
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR143
Tendolkar, J.1. A question of procedure of some importance has been raised on this summons. The question is whether when the affidavit in support of a summons for judgment taken out in a summary suit is made by the plaintiff himself he must be in a position to swear to the facts of his own personal knowledge or whether he can make the affidavit on information and belief. This question has often been raised in chambers; but so far as I am aware, it has never been argued, nor has a decision been given by any of my brother Judges, so that the practice in this respect remains undetermined. I have had the question fully argued before me; and I have been asked to deliver a judgment so that the practice may be settled and made known.2. The relevant rule is Rule 208 of the High Court Rules. Sub-rule (1) of that rule is in these terms:(1) In a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure if the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall, on affidavit made by himself, or...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. the Maharashtra Sugar Mill ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1947
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR893
M.C. Chagla, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden and the facts leading up to it are really not in dispute. On March 22, 1945, the Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd., executed a document in favour of the Central Bank of India for the purpose of borrowing a certain sum of money and the document was stamped with a stamp of Rs. 16-8-0 on the basis that the document was a deed of hypothecation. The document was sent in due course to the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar took the view that the document was not properly stamped and forwarded it to the Superintendent of Stamps. On April 4, 1945,the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps informed the Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd. that the document which had been forwarded to them by the Registrar of Companies was not a deed of hypothecation but was a mortgage with possession and therefore it was not duly stamped. A reply was sent to this letter by the Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd., on June 19, and they pointed out ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›