Mumbai Court November 1948 Judgments
In Re: Antonius Raab and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Bom101
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C. in respect of two persons against whom orders have been made under the Foreigners Act. The two persons are Mr. and Mrs. Raab, and it is the case of the Crown that out of them Mr. Raab was, before an order was issued by the Maharaja of Baroda conferring upon him the status of a subject of the Baroda State, a naturalized subject of the Republic of Costa Rica and Mrs. Raab was a Czechoslovak. It is not in dispute that on 8th November 1947, His Highness the Maharaja of Baroda passed an order recognising Mr. Raab as a Baroda State subject, and it is not disputed before us that, if this was a valid order in its inception and is still a valid order, then in that case Mr. and Mrs. Raab will be both subjects of the Baroda State, Mr. Raab, because of the order, and Mrs. Raab because of the provision of international law by which a wife attains the status, as far as nationality is concerned, of her husband. It appears fro...
Tag this Judgment!Ralla Ram Vs. the Province of East Punjab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR333
Fazal Ali, J.1. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the provisions of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (Punj. Act No. XVII of 1940), which will hereinafter be referred to as the Punjab Act, are beyond the powers of the Provincial Legislature which enacted it. The question arose under the following circumstances.2. The appellant is the owner of a shop in the town of Amritsar. Under the Act, to which reference has been made, he was called upon to pay, a sum of Rs. 67-8-0 as property tax for the year 1943-44 in respect of the shop. At first, he denied his liability to pay the amount, but, subsequently, he paid it under protest, and thereafter instituted a suit in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Amritsar, claiming its refund on the ground that the Act which levied the property tax was ultra vires the Punjab Legislature. This suit was dismissed, and thereupon, he made an application for revision to the Lahore High Court, but the application also was ...
Tag this Judgment!A.H. Wadia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR287
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant is the agent of the Gwalior Durbar. The Durbar was participating in various trade and business operations, in and outside the Gwalior State for many years. The record shows that those activities in any event existed in 1924 when the predecessor of the present Maharaja was on the throne. That Maharaja had appointed Mr. F.E. Din-shaw as his agent in Bombay for his, trade or business operations. The record shows that money was advanced as loan and also on the security of immovable properties. The Gwalior Durbar as such has not been treated as an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, but in respect of certain trading and business operations of the Durbar the Indian Income-tax authorities sought to make the Durbar liable under the Government Trading Taxation Act, III of 1926. Section 2 of that Act, which alone is material for the present case, runs as follows:-2 (1) Where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat Vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Bom245; (1950)52BOMLR133
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises a very short question of Mahomedan law, and the question is whether there is any obligation in law upon a father-in-law to maintain the widow of his son. The learned trial Judge has awarded maintenance to the daughter-in-law more on grounds of humanity than on legal principles, and Mr. Walawalkar also has appealed to us to accept those humane considerations and not deprive the daughter-in-law of the very small maintenance, viz. Rs. 6, which the learned Judge has awarded her. But however liberal and humane the Court may be inclined to be, it can not step outside the well-established principles of law and it cannot itself make a new law for the parties.2. The principles with regard to maintenance under Mahomedan law are fairly well settled, and the main principle is, as is to be found in Mulla's Mahomedan Law, p. 286 and Mulla relies upon the statement of law in Baillie's Digest of Mahomedan Law at p. 467, that a person is liable to maintain another when...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaiyalal Khubchand and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ549
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The six applicants, who had been called upon to show cause under Section 107, Criminal P.C., by the First Class Magistrate, Bilaspur, duly filed their written statements denying the allegations made against them and the case was fixed for 6th January 1943 for the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On that date, however, the applicants presented an application in which they voluntarily agreed to execute the bond required by the preliminary order and the First Class Magistrate concerned passed an order in those terms. In spite of this, the applicants appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, and he remanded the proceedings for retrial from the stage prior to the passing of the trial Court's order, on the ground that in such proceedings an enquiry must be held before the final order can be passed.2. The applicants have now come in revision to this Court on the grounds that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to remand the ease for retrial and that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vithoba Bala Vs. Goval Prasad Rangilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1948
Reported in: 1950CriLJ176
ORDERMudholkar, J.1. The applicant had made a complaint to the police against the non- applicant and three others in respect of an offence under Section 462, Penal code. A challan was put up by the police against these persons, but later on the case was withdrawn by them.2. Thereafter the non-applicant made an application to the trying Magistrate Under Section 476, Criminal P.C. for making a complaint against the applicant in respect of an offence Under Section 211, Penal Code. The Magistrate rejected the application on three grounds. The first of these grounds was that there was nothing to show that the challan was withdrawn because the complaint upon which it was based was found to be false. The second ground was that the applicant had no opportunity to prove the truth of his allegations. The third ground was that the challan was withdrawn at a very early stags before any evidence was recorded. The non. applicant then preferred an appeal Under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tarmahomed Haji Abdul Rehman Vs. Tyeb Ebrahim Bharamchari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom257; (1949)51BOMLR219
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Tendolkar by which he passed a decree for Rs. 8,000 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit on three hundis, two dated April 4, 1947, payable 90 days after the date of the hundis, and the third hundi dated April 29, 1947, for Rs. 3,000 payable 68 days after the date of the hundi. The defence of the defendant was that these hundis were passed for accommodation. At the trial three issues were raised:(1) Whether the hundis were passed for the accommodation of the plaintiff as alleged in para. 2 of the written statement?(2) What relief is the plaintiff entitled to and(3) Whether the defendant is entitled to the return of the said three hundis as alleged in para. 6 of the written statement and counter-claim ?2. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant had failed to prove that the hundis in suit were passed for accommodation. It was then argued before him that inasmuch as the plaintiff had ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Khudabax Vs. King Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ842
ORDERMangalmurti, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by Mohammad Khudabax who has been convicted of an offence under Section 198, Penal Code and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 (one hundred rupees) only Cr in default simple imprisonment for one month. This conviction and sentence have been upheld by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.2. The following was the charge against the applicant Mohammad Khudabax:That you on or about the 21st day of November 1942 at Nagpur in the course of the trial of Civil Suit No. 46B of 1941 before Mr. S. N, Mishra, 2nd Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Nagpur, stated in evidenceI did not ask Chunnilul to return the amount till the day on which I actually sent the notice; I am sure of thiswhich statement you either knew Cr believed to be false Cr did not believe to be true, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, etc.3. The charge thus was under Section 193 read w...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Reddy S/O Narsayya Vs. Provincial Government
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ363
ORDER1. This is an application for his release under 8. 491, Criminal P. C, by R. L. Reddy, storeman, Bengal Nagpur Railway, Nagpur, whose detention was ordered for a period of six months on 31st July 1948 by the Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar, under; Section 2(1)(a), C. P, and Berar Public Safety Act, 1947. On the same date, he was, in accordance with Section 5, ibid, issued the following grounds of detention and particulars:(1) You are the General Secretary of the Nagpur B, N. R, Workers Union and a prominent member of the Communist Party of India which has decided to arm the masses and to start a peoples' army with the object of overthrowing Government established by law.(2) You were actively trying to foment and incite strikes with intent to cause unreal among the railway employees at Nagpur.(3) You attended a secret meeting convened by Shri C. P. Mehta on 29th May 1948 at which instructions were issued to the local Communist Party members to carry on agitation ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay Vs. Govind Laxman Sav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom229; (1949)51BOMLR190
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The Municipality of Bombay decided to improve and increase the water supply of the City of Bombay and with that view it decided to launch what is popularly known as the Vaitarna-cum-Tansa Project. That project involved the building of a new pipe line 96' from Tansa. In order to carry out the work the Municipal Commissioner invited tenders on March 18, 1948, and in response to this invitation three contractors submitted tenders and these tenders were Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which dealt with different portions of the pipe line. The first contractor that submitted the tender was Rawji Sojpal who submitted all the three tenders Nos. 7, 8 and 9, and the total amount was Rs. 72,94,055. The Hindustan Construction Co., Ltd., also submitted all the three tenders and the total amount of their tenders was Rs. 72,29,394. Messrs. S.B. Joshi & Co. submitted only one tender, No. 7, and their tender was for Rs. 28,89,952. With regard to the Hindustan Construction Co., Ltd., they sent a let...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »