Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ166
ORDERHemeon, J.1. Rajjubai and her minor daughter Skakuntala were awarded Under Section 10 and Rs. 3 respectively as maintenance from the applicant Nacre by the First Class Magistrate, Dmdori; and in revision the District Magistrate, Mandla sent back the case for further evidence regarding the quantum of maintenance. The same rates of maintenance were fixed by the first Court and the District Magistrate rejected the application for revision of that order. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.2. Bajjubai had sought a maintenance order in the civil Courts, but the case was compromised and under the deed of compromise, Ex. P-l, dated 7th September 1945, Netram agreed to pay her Ea. 6 per mensem as maintenance so long as she did not remarry and bahaved according to his directions. Since Bhadon (August-September) 1946, however, he had ceased paying it.3. The main contention raised in the applicant's behalf was to the effect that as the parties had entered into an agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ580
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Shamrao of Sirsoli, Akot taluq, Akola district, had filed an application under sa. 107 and 145, Criminal P. 0., against the non-applicant Mahadeo and others in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Akot, who, on 14th September 1946, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 with respect to fields survey Nos. 96/1 and 96/3 situate in the aforesaid village Sirsoli. After it had been pointed out to him that the dispute actually related only to field survey No. 9C/l,ke in the order-sheet, dated 26th September 1946, noted that he would have no jurisdiction over that portion of survey no. 98 which was not in dispute and he also made it clear that the only crop liable to be sold by the Court would be that from the disputed portion of that survey number.2. Subsequently, according to Shamrao, Mahadeo, in spite of the order of attachment, had picked and removed cotton from the land in question; and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after due enquiry, filed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR551
Uthwatt, J.1. In the proceedings out of which this appeal arises the appellants sought a declaration that the purported revocation by the respondent Government on January 28, 1944, of a licence to supply electricity to the town of Hubli was invalid and asked for consequential relief on the footing of that declaration. Their suit was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay acting in its original jurisdiction and that decision was affirmed by that Court in its appellate jurisdiction (Stone C.J. dissenting). Many matters at issue in the suit are not now in controversy. The substantial questions before their Lordships are confined to questions of construction arising under the Indian Electricity Act (IX of 1910).2. Under that Act the Government was empowered to grant to persons to be selected by the Government licences to supply electrical energy in areas to be specified in the licences and to lay down electric supply lines for the transmission of such energy.3. Sections 3(2) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR942
Reid, J.1. The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India.2. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom18
Bhagwati J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts as above proceeded.] The two points which have been agitated before us by Mr. Coyajee, counsel for the appellants, the District Local Board, E.K. Jalgaon, are (1) that on a true construction of Section 8(1) and Section 8 (2) and the proviso thereto of the Primary Education Act and Rule 59 of the Rules framed thereunder, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declarations and the other reliefs asked for in the plaint and (2) that the suits were barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 26E, Primary Education Act.2. The determination of these two questions turns on the construction of the relevant provisions of the Primary Education Act and the relevant rules framed under the power given to the Government in that behalf under Section 27 of the Act. It would be necessary, therefore, in determining each one of these two points to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.3. The relevant section in behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR746
Bhagwati, J.[His Lordship after setting out the facts as above proceeded.]1. The two points which have been agitated before us by Mr. Coyajee, counsel for the appellants, the District Local Board, E.K. Jalgaon, are (1) that on a true construction of Section 8(1) and Section 8(2) and the proviso thereto of the Primary Education Act and Rule 59 of the Rules framed thereunder, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declarations and the other reliefs asked for in the plaint and (2) that the suits were barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 26E of the Primary Education Act.2. The determination of these two questions turns on the construction of the relevant provisions of the Primary Education Act and the relevant rules framed under the power given to the Government in that behalf under Section 27 of the Act. It would be necessary, therefore, in determining each one of these two points to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.3. The relevant section in behal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR442
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.I have read the judgment prepared by Mukherjea J. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of that judgment and have nothing to add.Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court dated November 14, 1944, by which the learned Judges reversed a decree of dismissal made by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore, in a suit for partition and accounts.2. The material facts are not controverted and may be briefly stated as follows. The properties which are described in the schedules to the plaint belonged admittedly to one Kedar Nath Das, who died on December 18, 1920, leaving behind him a will which was executed on July 5, 1916. The near relatives of Kedar who survived him were his wife Golapmoni, two sons-Bejoy Sashi and Benoy Sashi-and two daughters Hemnalini and Mrinalini. There were four grandsons also born during the life-time of the testator and actually in existence at the date of his death, three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ597
1.The appellant Hanumanprasad was sentenced to death under S, S02, Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, for having caused the death of Bamkaran after an attack on him on 26th May 1948 at Bundra, Harda tahsil, HoBhangabad district. With the appeal will be considered the reference made under Section 374, Criminal P. C, for the confirm tion of the death sentence, [After discussing facts and evidence (pares a to 11) their Lordships proceeded:]12. III view of the material changes in the versions of Sheoram, Kashibai and Bahadur, [witnesses in the committing Court-Ed.] the trial Court was fully entitled to have reoourse to the provisions of 8. 288, Criminal P. 0., to bring their depositions in the committing Court on record. These witnesses had undoubtedly been won over in the interim and it may rea-Bonably be presumed that the malguzar Badri-prasad was responsible for this as well as for subornation of the testimony of Sitaram (p. w. 7) and Ramkaran (p. w. 9), carpente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ932
ORDER1. The questions referred to us are:1. Whether the High Court has inherent powers to exempt an accused from appearance in Court beyond those contained in Ss. SOS and 610-A, Criminal P. C. and2. Is ML Saji v. Mt. Bhimi rightly decided ?2. The sections which deal with or are said to deal with the power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused are Sections 205, 363 and B40A, Criminal P.C.3. Section 205, Criminal P. 0. only deals with the cases in which a Magistrate issues a summons. It thus does not cover those cases in which warrants are issued or the accused are j brought under arrest or the accused appears ' before any process is issued.4. Section 353, Criminal P. C, lays down that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader. It has been held in Emperor v. G. W, King, 14 bom. L. E. 236 : 15 I. O. 96: 18 cri. L. J. 464 In re Kandamani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom16
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Judge, Sholapur, holding that a suit under Section 15D read with Section 10A, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, instituted on 3rd January 1945, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur, was not maintainable and must be dismissed.2. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act of 1939 was made applicable to Pandharpur on 1st January 1942. Section 85, Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1939, provides that on the date on which a Board is established, the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, shall cease to have force in such area. Under Section 86, however, the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act is deemed to remain in force in such area for purposes of institution of suits for a period of three years from the date when the Board is established. Therefore it is not disputed that for three years after 1st January 1942, the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act was in for...
Tag this Judgment!