Mumbai Court July 1948 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Bank of Bihar, Limited Vs. Sarangdhar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR936
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated April 20, 1942, which set aside an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, dated November 29, 1941, dismissing a petition of the respondents under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appeal arises in an execution proceeding of the money decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, in money suit No. 5 of 1939, dated August 22, 1940.3. The appellant before the Board is the decree-holder (plaintiff) the Bihar Bank, Limited. The respondents are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit.4. The order passed by the Subordinate Judge in the suit was as follows:Suit decreed against defendant No. 3 in the presence of defendants 4 to 6.... The suit is dismissed as against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with costs....5. In the execution of the decree which was for Rs. 15,718-7-0 with interest and costs, one-third share in certain joint family property c...
Muthuswami thevar Vs. Chidambara thevar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR5
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated January 12, 1945, reversing a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dated August 11, 1948.2. By an Order in Council dated February 19, 1946, the appellant was granted special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, leave to appeal having been refused by the High Court on the ground that the case did not fulfill the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure as to value. On the hearing of this appeal the respondent took the preliminary objection that the value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal did not amount to Rs. 10,000 and that leave to appeal should not have been given. The respondent had appeared on the petition for leave to appeal when the question of value was fully debated. The Order in Council did not reserve liberty to the respondent to raise this matter again at the hearing, and in their Lordships' opinion the preliminary objection is ...
Emperor Vs. Kalidas Amtharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR100
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application for revision against an order made by the Second Additional First Class Magistrate, Ahmedabad, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the Act under which he was charged was invalid. That view was also upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The accused was charged for an offence under Section 7 of the Bombay Harijan (Removal of Social Disabilities) Act, 1946, for having refused To serve tea to a Harijan in his tea shop, and the contention raised by the applicant was that this Act was ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. This contention was based on the argument that the subject of removal of social disabilities of Harijans does not form part either of List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, and therefore the Provincial Legislature was not competent to legislate on this subject. The learned Magistrate took the view that as this Act had received the assent of the Governor General, the Govern...
Kalidas Amtharam Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom168; 1949CriLJ635
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application for revision against an order made by the Second Additional First Glass Magistrate, Ahmedabad, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the Act under which he was charged was invalid. That view was also upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The accused was charged for an offence under Section 7, Bombay Harijan (Removal of Social Disabilities) Act, 1946, for having refused to Serve tea to a Harijan in his tea shop, and the contention raised by the applicant was that this Act was ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. This contention was based on the argument that the subject of removal of the social disabilities of Harijans does not form part either of List u or List m in sch. 7, Government of India Act, and therefore the Provincial Legislature was not competent to legislate on this subject. The learned Magistrate took the view that as this Act had received the assent of the Governor. General, the Governor. General by implication ha...
The Maharaja of Pittapuram Vs. the Province of Madras
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR185
Normand, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from three decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirming three decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada in suits instituted by the appellant, the Maharaja of Pittapuram, against the respondent, the Province of Madras, in which he claimed the ownership of certain alluvial islands called 'lankas' in the bed of the river Godavari.2. The facts of the case may be conveniently stated at this stage in broad outline. On May 5, 1808, a sanad or deed of permanent property was granted by Lord Clive, then Governor-in-Couneil of Fort St. George, to the appellant's predecesor-in-title, settling in perpetuity the assessment of the zamindari of Pittapuram and authorising the appellant's predecessor-in-title to hold the zamindari in perpetuity to his heirs, successors and assigns on condition of his performing certain stipulations specified in the deed and the duties of his allegiance to the British Government. The sanad did no...
P.V. Rao Vs. Ahmed Haji Noormahomed Latiff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom125; (1948)50BOMLR711
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Bhagwati granting the application of the petitioner to order the attendance of Mr. P.V. Rao for cross-examination under Rule 180 of the High Court Rules. The facts briefly are these. An order for requisition was served on the petitioner under the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance No. V of 1947, and this order has been challenged by the petitioner and he has prayed for a writ of certiorari against Mr. P.V. Rao. The order is signed by Mr. P.V. Rao as Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Health and Local Government Department, but the order in terms says that the order is issued by the order of the Government of Bombay. Now, one of the contentions taken up by Mr. Rao is that the petition is misconceived inasmuch as the order is made not by him, Mr. Rao, but by the Government of Bombay, and as the petitioner seeks to have a writ of certiorari issued against him personally, the petition cannot succeed. On th...
Vishnu Vishwanath Paranjpe Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom248; (1949)51BOMLR238
Dixit, J.1. This second appeal raises a question under Bombay Act II of 1863, and the facts necessary to understand the question are these.2. Plaintiff Vishwanath and his two brothers Keshav and Krishnaji were members of a joint Hindu family. These three brothers were possessed of considerable property consisting of houses, lands and a grocery shop. They had also an interest in ajaliagir village called Vadner and that interest was that they were to receive a sum of Its. 1,555-5-4 out of the revenues of the village. It appears that in 1938 there was a dispute between them about the division of the ancestral and jointly acquired properties and the dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award and an award decree was passed on October 25, 1937. That decree was registered on January 8, 1938. It appears that the award decree was to some extent modified by a compromise between the parties in suit No. 210 of 1936. After the award decree the two brothers Keshav and Krishnaj...
Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR431
Simonds, J.1. This consolidated appeal results from the consolidation of four appeals from the Chief Court of Oudh, all of which relate to assessments of income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Two appeals relate to the income of Raja Mustafa Ali Khan of Utraula, who will be referred to as 'the assessee' for the year of assessment 1939-40 and two appeals to his income for the year of assessment 1940-41. In each, case there is one appeal by the assessee and one by the Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces, who will be referred to as 'the Commissioner.' The same questions are raised in regard to each year and it will be necessary to state and consider the facts in regard to one year only.3. By an assessment order dated September 18, 1939, the Income-tax Officer, Gonda, made an assessment for the year 1939-40 on the assessee, which included as income from 'other sources' (as defined in Section 12 of the Act) three separate items as follows:1. Forest Rs. 25,144.2. Malika...
Rajaram Maniram Pardeshi Vs. Jagannath Rawathmal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom274; (1949)51BOMLR234
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Assistant Judge at Nasik dismissing the suit. The few facts relating to the present dispute can be briefly stated. On August 22, 1927, the plaintiff passed a sale deed in defendant's favour for Rs. 3,000. It is the plaintiff's case that though the transaction assumed the form of a sale-deed, it was in fact a mortgage. He has filed the present suit for accounts under Section 15 D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, alleging that the transaction of 1927 was in fact a mortgage and that the consideration was only Rs. 1,700. The defendant contended that the present suit is barred by res judicata and that the transaction of 1927 was a sale out and out and that the consideration for the sale was Rs. 3,000 and not Rs. 1,700 as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by res judicata and that the transaction of 1927 was a mortgage and that the consideration for t...
Ramprashad Makundram Rajput Vs. the Crown
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ713
1. Ramprasad Rajput of Tillage Chhidgaon in Harda tahsil has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hosbangabad, under Section 302, Penal Code, of the murder of a woman Mt. Rewa and has been sentenced to death. There was also a charge of robbery against him under 6, 892, Penal Code, in respect of Mt. Bewa's ornaments for which offence also he has been convicted and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. He baa appealed from his convictions and there is also a reference before us for confirmation of the sentence of death.2. Mt. Rewa was the wife of one Laxman who is an adopted son of Mt. Punia (p. W, 5) of village Chhidgaon. They all lived in the house of Mt. Punia. The accused Ramprasad was in the service of the family as an agricultural servant some years ago and during that time criminal intimacy developed between the accused and Mt. Rewa. According to the evidence of M6. Punia, Mt. Rewa due to this intimacy favoured the accused and used to give him grain and money ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »