Mumbai Court July 1948 Judgments
Sudama Sheoba Vs. King Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: 1950CriLJ224
1. The appellant Sudama son of Sheoba has been convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, of the murder of one Sk. Budhan of Nagardas and sentenced to death. He has also been convicted Under Section 392 read with 8. 34, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. With his appeal will also be considered a reference Under Section 374, Criminal P.C., for the confirmation of the sentence of death imposed on him.2. The appellant Sudama was tried along with two others, Kisan Kanhuji and Sakharam Sonaji, who were acquitted. The prosecution ease is that on 20th October 1947 the three ac cussed assaulted Sk. Budban when he was work-ing in his field at Nagardas and inflicted a deep wound on his neck which severed the windpipe and the underlying tissues. Sk. Budban died of this wound in the hospital after an illness of about a week.3. The conviction against the appellant rests cipon the dying declarations of Sk. Budhan and the confession of the accused made before Shri G. E, V...
Tag this Judgment!Y.R. Parpia Vs. R.M.D. Chamarbagwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom109; (1948)50BOMLR728
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is the sole concessionaire for India, Burma and Ceylon of Messrs. Littlewood's Pool Limited, Liverpool, who are conducting on a large scale a Football Pool Competition. In July 1946, the petitioner applied for and obtained a license from the Collector of Bombay for a period ending March 31, 1947. He further applied and obtained a license for a further period ending March 31, 1948. On the expiration of that period he made an application for a renewal of his license, and the Collector of Bombay refused to renew the license. On that he presented a petition for a mandamus under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act to compel the Collector to issue the license to him. The matter came up before Mr. Justice Bhagwati and he made an order on the Collector to issue the license to him. From the order of Mr. Justice Bhagwati the Collector of Bombay has come in appeal before us.2. The license which the petitioner seeks is issued under the Bombay Prize...
Tag this Judgment!Muppannappa Kannappa Gastiyavar Vs. Fakiragouda Chanbasangouda Gangang ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom213; (1949)51BOMLR242
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this civil revision application are that a money decree was passed against the judgment-debtor, applicant No. 1, and his judgment-creditor applied for the execution of that decree by attachment of certain lands belonging to the judgment-debtor. The execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector and the Collector sold the attached lands on December, 28, 1944. This property was purchased at the auction sale by opponent No. 2. On January 13, 1945, the judgment-debtor mortgaged the property to applicant No. 2 and it was provided in the mortgage deed that applicant No. 2 should keep with himself a sum of Rs. 1,750 out of the mortgage amount which was advanced to the judgment-debtor for the purpose of depositing the amount in Court to set aside the auction sale which had taken place. On January 15, 1945, this sum of Rs. 1,750 was deposited in Court by the mortgagee. On January 27, 1945, a joint aplication was made by the mortgagee and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullamiya Hamdumiya Vs. Mahomedmiya Gulamhusein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom276; (1949)51BOMLR241
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal has abated as the appellant died and the legal representatives have not been brought on record within the time prescribed by the law of limitation. Mr. Shah's clients have filed cross-objections to the appeal and Mr. Shah contends that although the appeal has abated, he has a right to have his cross-objections heard since he has brought the heirs of the appellant on the record for the purpose of his cross-objections.2. Now, the provision with regard to the hearing of cross-objections is to be found in Order XLI, Rule 22, and in order to understand and appreciate the present position in law one must look at the history of legislation as contained in this particular rule. Under the old Code of 1882, Section 561 contained the corresponding provisions and under that section the language used was that any respondent may upon the hearing of the appeal not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below, but take any cross-o...
Tag this Judgment!Juharimal Senaji Vs. Liladhar Madhavji Satwara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom304; (1949)51BOMLR485
Desai, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant to recover three sums, one of Rs. 4,500 lent by the plaintiff to the defendant on June 30, 1946, another of Rs. 400 lent by the plaintiff on December 2, 1946, and a third sum of Rs. 50 lent by the plaintiff on January 30, 1947. The plaintiff, in addition to these three sums, claims interest, with the result that the total amount now claimed by him is Rs. 5,952 and interest. In paragraph 7 of the plaint the plaintiff says that the defendant resides in Bombay. It is not stated that the defendant ordinarily resides in Bombay.2. By his written statement the defendant has raised various defences, the first of which is contained in paragraph 1 of his written statement. That paragraph states as follows:The defendant holds land for agricultural purposes in the Thana District and has been cultivating land personally; his annual income from sources other than agricultural and manual labour does not exceed 33 per cent, of his tot...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jayantilal Nathubhai Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom319; (1949)51BOMLR653
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an application under the provisions of Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release from detention of the applicant who, now it appears from the return which has been made, is detained by an order passed by the District Magistrate of Ahmedabad bearing the date April 2, 1948, for his detention. It was the case of the applicant that he was actually arrested in the district of Surat on April 30, 1948, without a warrant and without any copy of any detention order being served upon him, and that a copy of the order, which it is now contended authorized the detention, was given to him only on May 3, 1948. He said that consequently, in the first instance, his arrest was illegal, and, secondly, that his detention under the order was also illegal, because, even though the order bore the date April 2, 1948, when it was served upon him, it was an ante-dated order which had not been passed on April 2, 1948. There were other grounds upon which he said that the order...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Rani Vs. Prem Adib
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom215; (1949)51BOMLR256
Desai, J.1. This suit raises a question of importance so far as contracts of service entered into on behalf of minors are concerned. Contracts involving service by minors may be of considerable value in cases like the one before me where the minor is allotted the role of a Cinema Star or is employed as an artist for the production of a film of considerable value.2. The plaintiff in this case is a minor girl who has brought this suit suing by her next friend, her father and natural guardian, one Dhirajsingh Muramal, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,708-10-0 being the amount of damages alleged to have been suffered by her by reason of a breach of a contract entered into by Dhirajsingh Muramal with the defendant for and on her behalf.Paragraph 1 of the plaint states as follows :-On or about January IS, 1947, the defendant orally agreed with the plaintiff s father named Dhiraj Singh Muramal, to employ the plaintiff as an artist in the defendant's concern called the Prem Adib Pictures for...
Tag this Judgment!Shamrao Babaji Lokare Vs. Bhimrao Kondi Lokare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom311; (1949)51BOMLR466
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question concerning the Hindu law of adoption. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that one Babaji died leaving a widow Anubai and a son Krishna. Krishna married Vitha. Krishna died on October 27, 1918, leaving a son Changdeo. Changdeo died on October 28, 1918, and Vitha died in 1928. Anubai adopted to her husband defendant No. 1 on May 14, 1934, and the suit was filed by the next reversioners challenging the adoption. Both the lower Courts took the view, that the adoption was bad.2. It is urged by Mr. Desai on behalf of the adopted son that since the recent Privy Council decision a revolutionary change has taken place with regard to the view taken by the Courts in India as to the nature and effect of adoption. Originally decisions on adoption emphasised the property aspect of adoption and those decisions were also coloured by the English view of the law of property. The idea was shocking to an English lawyer that a property...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Damaji Awade Vs. Provincial Government, C.P. and Berar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ492
ORDER1. The applicant, Haridas Damaji Awade, is a final LL. B. student in the Univer-sity College of Law, Nagpur. He is an Activ& worker and one of the chief organizers of the Samata Sainik Dal.2. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the Provincial Government, by a notification dated 10th February 1948, declared the said Dal as an unlawful association. By another notification it specified in a schedule the places which are used for the purpose of. unlawful association. Nagpur district was one of the places so mentioned.3. After I&'said Dal was declared unlawful, the applicant was detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, under Section 2(2), Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act 1947. The applicant is now detained under an order of detention passed by the Provincial Government on 9th March 1948 under Section 3(l)(a) of the Act. The detention is for a period of six months from 9th March 1948. The Provin-cial Govern...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Cooper Vs. Shiavax Cowasji Cambata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom131; (1948)50BOMLR718
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Desai, and the question that arises for determination is whether the plaintiffs who are the landlords are entitled to eject their tenants, the defendants. The defendants were the monthly tenants of the plaintiffs and on July 23, 1947, they sublet their tenement. The plaintiffs gave a notice to the defendants terminating the tenancy.2. The first contention that has been raised by Mr. Parpia on behalf of the tenants is that the notice to terminate was not a valid notice inasmuch as only a month's notice was given, whereas the agreement between the parties required that the notice should be of two months' duration. The agreement between the parties provides that the lessors shall let to the lessees the tenement in question for their use and occupation on a monthly tenancy, and then states the rent which has got to be paid. Clause 9 of the lease provides that either party desiring to terminate the tenancy at or after th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »