Mumbai Court January 1949 Judgments
The Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR635
Madhavan Nair. J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated April 3, 1941, confirming in the first Appeal (A. No. 211 of 1938) the decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Thana dated April 30, 1938, in Suit No. 207 of 1936) hereinafter called the 'Vile Parle suit' from the village to which it relates), and in the second appeal (A. No. 216 of 1938) reversing the decree of the same date of the said Subordinate Judge in suit No. 115/34 (hereinafter called the 'Juhu suit' from the village to which it relates).2. These appeals arise out of two suits which were brought against the Secretary of State for India, now represented by the Province of Bombay, hereinafter called the Government (appellant in the first and respondent in the second of these appeals-defendant), by Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia (respondent No. 1 in the first of these appeals and appellant in the second plaintiff No. 2) and the other trustees of a tru...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Timmappa Shetti Vs. Hanumant Patgavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR757
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal from order are these. The plaintiff is a nephew of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's father died in about 1925, leaving behind him his widow, a minor son the present plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 1. In 1932-1933, the plaintiff's uncle defendant No. 1 took up a ferry contract, and as he did not pay the amount of the bid, the undivided property of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 consisting of certain mulgeni rights in Survey No. 16 of Phattubele village was brought to sale and was eventually purchased by defendant No. 2 at an auction sale. In 1940, the plaintiff who was even then a minor brought a suit, No. 217 of 1940, through his guardian mother asking for a declaration that the auction sale held in 1985 in favour of defendant No. 2 was not binding upon the plaintiff's half share in the suit property and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from taking the income of his share of the property. The suit was dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Harisingji Chandrasingji Vs. Ajitsingji Chandrasingji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR770
Chainani, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals are illegitimate sons of Sardar Chandrasinghji Himatsinghji, who was the Thakore of Matar estate, which is a talukdari estate in Amod taluka in Broach District. He was a Rajput by caste. The respondent is the eldest legitimate son of Sardar Chandrasinghji, and succeeded to the estate on the latter's death on July 10, 1939. By custom the estate is impartible, and succession to it is governed by the rule of primogeniture. In 1943 the two appellants filed two separate suits claiming maintenance from the respondent. They stated in their plaints that their mother was in the continuous and exclusive keeping of Chandrasinghji, that there was a custom prevalent in Gujarat and in the Broach District according to which the junior members of the family and illegitimate sons were entitled to maitenance, and that they had, therefore, a right to recover maintenance from the estate, both according to custom and also according to law. The defendant di...
Tag this Judgment!Hubert P. James Vs. Gulam HusseIn Pakseema
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR945
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed in its appellate jurisdiction dated October 4, 1945, in part reversing and in part confirming a decree of that Court passed in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction on December 22, 1944.2. The main question in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondent, who was the defendant, were partners hi a restaurant business, or whether the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff in the business entitled to a share of the profits as remuneration for his services. The appellant also claimed from the respondent a sum of over Its. 8,000 alleged to be due in respect of food and other necessaries supplied to the respondent and his family from the business. This last claim failed in both the Courts in India and has not been raised before the Board. At the trial Bhagwati J. held that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff; the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Biharilal Kalacharan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR564
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. [His Lordship, after dealing with questions of fact arising in the case, proceeded :] Mr. Lulla has then raised a rather interesting point of law. According to him even assuming that the prosecution have established their case against the accused no offence in law has been committed. According to Mr. Lulla under Section 213 it is only when the accused actually screens any person from legal punishment that the offence is complete. According to him the mere promise to screen a person from legal punishment and to receive gratification for that promise does not constitute an offence. We are unable to accept that contention. Looking to the plain meaning of the section, apart from any authority, it seems to us that the mischief that is aimed at by the Legislature is the accepting of a gratification for concealing an offence or screening any person from legal punishment or not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment, and not the ac...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Rao Vs. Khushaldas S. Advani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom277; (1949)51BOMLR342
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati by which he ordered a writ of certiorari to issue against respondent No. 1, who is the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Health and Local Government Department, the Province of Bombay, respondent No. 2, and Mr. Vartak, a Minister of the Government of Bombay, formerly in charge of the Health and Local Government Department, respondent No. 3. The material facts which led up to the order made by Mr. Justice Bhagwati may be briefly stated. One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to January 29, 1948, the tenant of the first floor of a building known as 'Paradise' at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. M. v. Vakil. On January 29, 1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two others, the son and brother's daughter's son of the petitioner. All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On February 4, 1948, the petitioner went into possession of the flat. On February 26, 194...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Rao Vs. Girdharlal Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom303; (1949)51BOMLR418
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is also an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati ordering the issue of a writ of certiorari against the three respondents. The same questions are involved in this appeal as were involved in Rao v. Advani : AIR1949Bom277 and for the reasons given by us in that appeal the same consequences must follow in this appeal. But the order made by Government which is challenged is under Section 4(3) of the Ordinance and not under Section 3. It is not disputed that the premises which were requisitioned were not in existence at the date when the Notification was issued by the Provincial Government specifying the areas in which premises are situated to which Section 4 would apply, and the question that arises for determination is whether Section 4 would apply to premises which come into existence after the date of the Notification. Now, Section 4 refers to premises which are vacant on the date of such Notification or which become vacant after such date. They we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›