Mumbai Court January 1949 Judgments
Tarabai Jivanlal Parekh Vs. Lala Padamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom89
Coyajee, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration that the defendant has no right to obtain possession of a certain flat from Government and for an order against the defendant to hand over possession of the flat, being flat No. 13, to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant is described as the person who was a monthly tenant of flat No. 13 in a building known as Jivan Vihar which was requisitioned by Government on 8th August 1944. The possession of the flat was taken from the defendant, who claims to be the tenant, on 5th May 1945. The Government derequisitioned the flat on 27th May 1947. On the order of derequisition being passed, the Government gave possession of the flat to the party from whom the Government had taken possession at the date of the requisition, namely, the defendant.2. In short, the plaintiff's case is that at the date when the requisition order was served both on the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant's tenancy of the flat came to an end.3...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Bom205; (1950)52BOMLR688
1. These two suits are ejectment suits filed by a landlord against his two ten-ants. Since the passing of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act (LVII [57] of 1947), this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try any suits between a landlord and a tenant to which the provisions of the Act apply; and they are exclusively triable under that Act in Greater Bombay by the Court of Small Causes. The defendants in both these suits have contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to try these suits; and that issue has been ordered by my learned brother Bhagwati J, to be tried as a preliminary issue.2. Now, the only facts that are relevant for the determination of the question of jurisdiction are that by an agreement of lease dated 12.11. 1918, between the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and one Abraham Jacob Reymond, Reymond agreed to obtain from the trustees and the trustees agreed to grant him a lease of a certain plot of land, for the purpose of putting up a build...
Tag this Judgment!Ahsanul Haq and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ927
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants, Absanulal Haq and Tufail Ahamad were originally tried in the Court of Sbri E. C. Dube, First Class Magistrate, Nagpur, under Sections 7 and 8, Essential Supplies {Temporary Powers) Aofc, 1946, for contravention of the provisions of the Cotton Cloth Movements Control Order, 1913, on 9th July 1917 and they were convicted and sentenced on 9th December 1947. That order had, however, ceased to be in force long before the date of the alleged contravention and the order which was operative on the relevant date was the Cotton Textile Control of Movement) Order, 1946. This signified that the applicants could have been validly tried for a contravention of that order of 1946 after the requisite sanction thereto, as required by Clause 10, had been obtained. Their trial for contravention of the earlier order was, therefore, illegal and the Second Sessions Judge in appeal quashed their convictions on 24 to February 1948.2. Thereafter, the requisite sanction under th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Majid Abdul Aziz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom387; (1949)51BOMLR568
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Presidency Magistrate, 20th Court, acquitting the accused who was charged under Section 2(6) of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act (Bom. VI of 1947).2. This appeal raises rather an important question of principle. An order was made against the accused on June 24, 1947, by the Commissioner of Police under Section 2(1)(b) of Bombay Act VI of 1947. The accused complied with the order and left the jurisdiction of the City of Bombay. But. he came back to Bombay in November and thereby contravened the order. He was arrested on November 22, 1947, and he was prosecuted under Sub-section (6) of Section 2 for contravening the order made by the Commissioner of Police. The learned Magistrate took the view that the prosecution had failed to establish the conditions laid down, by the Legislature for the making of a valid order under Section 2(1)(b), and, therefore, the accused was entitled to an acquittal. The Advocate General has co...
Tag this Judgment!Jagatchandra N. Vora Vs. the Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR997
Tendolkar, J.1. The question that arises for determination in these rules and also in other rules in respect of orders of requisition issued under Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, is whether a writ of certiorari lies in respect of such an order. It has been argued in all the rules, although this judgment is headed only in some of the rules typical of the two classes of cases which arise under Section 6, viz. (1) where an intimation of vacancy has been given and (2) where no such in timation is given.2. In P.V. Rao v. Girdharlal Lallubhai (1949) 51 Bom. L.R. 438 Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, came to the conclusion that an order of requisition under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947, was a quasi-judicial act, and, therefore, subject to the writ of certiorari. In order to appreciate what actually was decided in that appeal it is necessary to look at the scheme of Section 4 of the Ordinance and the facts o...
Tag this Judgment!Jagatchandra N. Vora and anr. Vs. the Province of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom144
ORDERTendolkar, J.1. The question that arises for determination in these rules and also in other rules in respect of orders of requisition issued under Section 6, Bombay Land Requisition. Act, 1948, is whether a writ of certiorari lies in respect of such an order. It has been argued in all the rules, although this judgment is headed only in some of the rules typical of the two classes of cages which arise under Section 6, viz. (1) where an intimation of vacancy has been given and (2) where no such intimation is given.2. In P.V. Rao v. Girdharlal Lallubhai 51 Bom. L. R. 418 : a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a A. I. R. 1949 Bom. 303party, came to the conclusion that an order of requisition under Sub-section (4) of Section 4, Bombay Laud Requisition Ordinance, 1947, wag a quasi-judicial Act, and, therefore, subject to the writ of certiorari. In order to appreciate what actually was decided in that appeal it is necessary to look at the scheme of Section 4 of the Ordinance an...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. King Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ838
ORDERMemon, J.1. The applicant, Abdul Rahim Khan of Betul was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Hs. 60 under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, by the First Class Magistrate, Betul; and his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated i to the effect that on 16th September 1947 when his house was searched by the police, a live cartridge was found in an almirah in the front room of the house. The applicant in examination admitted that the cartridge, Article A, had been found in his house and seized from him on the relevant date by V. W. Matapurkar (p. W. i), Sub-Inspector, but in his written statement, which was filed 4 months later, he represented that the house was divided into 2 separate portions and that Article A had been found in the portion occupied by the widow and children of his deceased brother Abdul Hamid Khan who was the licence-holder of a gun, This belated plea was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Md. Abdullah Uraizee Vs. P.V. Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR993
Tendolkar, J.1. These are a number of rules for writs of certiorari and prohibition and orders under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against the Provincial Government, and also against the Secretary of the Health and Local Government Department and the Minister concerned, in respect of orders passed under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. In a recent judgment of a division bench of this Court in Rao v. Advani : AIR1949Bom277 to which I was a party, we have held that no proceedings lie either by way of writs of certiorari or prohibition or under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against a Minister or against a Secretary of the appropriate department in respect of the acts of the Provincial Government, and that writs of certiorari and prohibition can only be issued against the Provincial Government. The rules, therefore, do not survive as against any parties other than the Provincial Government.2. The question that has been raised as a preliminary issue for de...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Md. Abdullah Uraizee Vs. P.V. Rao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom158
ORDERTendolkar, J.1. These are a number of rules for writs of certiorari and prohibition and orders under Section 15. Specific Relief Act against the Provincial Government, and also against the Secretary of the Health and Local Government Department and the Minister concerned, in respect of orders passed under Section 5, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. In a recent judgment of a division bench of this Court; in Rao v. Advani 51 Bom. L. R. 342: A. I. R. 1949 Bom. 277 to which I was a party, we have held that no proceedings lie either by way of writs of certiorari or prohibition or under Section 15, Specific Relief Act against a Minister or against a Secretary of the appropriate department in respect of the acts of the Provincial Government, and that writs of certiorari and prohibition can only be issued against the Provincial Government. The rules, therefore do not survive as against any parties other than the Provincial Government.2. The question that has been raised as a preliminary...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR952
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated November 6, 1944, which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madras dated August 7, 1943.2. The only matter which arises for determination in this appeal, and on which special leave to appeal was granted, is whether the learned Judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the said order of the District Judge.3. On July 1, 1907, one Narayana, the grandfather of the appellants, made a will by which he founded a temple and directed his male heirs to act as trustees of the temple. Narayana died in 1910, and in 1915 the family became divided. Thereafter each branch of the family managed the temple for one year in rotation.4. In 1927, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (Mad. Act II of 1927) (hereinafter with its amendments referred to as the 'Act') was passed. The Act authorised the creat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »