Mumbai Court October 1949 Judgments
Lakshmidhar Misra Vs. Rangalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR458
Radcliffe, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the legal status of two parcels of land comprising 3-90 acres in all in the village of Byree, Killa Darpan, district Cuttack, Orissa. These two parcels, which may conveniently be referred to aw 'the disputed area,' are themselves part of a plot No. 1990-2401 in the same village, the plot lying to the west of the Bengal-Nagpur railway line which intersects the village. The documents in this case, not excluding the judgments, do not make it always an easy task to determine whether the whole plot No. 1990-2401 is not more properly the subject of dispute than that portion of it which is described as the disputed area. In fact all the relevant evidence bears as much upon the status of the larger as of the smaller area. However that may be, the appellants' case is that the disputed area must be recognised in law as a cremation ground of the village and that, it being so, no part of the site can be made available for the purposes of private indust...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhoddas Bhikardas Bhate Vs. Manga Bhika Bhole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom277; (1950)52BOMLR286
Chagla C. J.1. Both these appeals raise an interesting question as to the applicability of Section 66, Civil P. C. Section 66 was enacted in order to prohibit a suit against the certified purchaser by a real owner on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the real owner or on behalf of someone through whom the plaintiff claims, and this rule was enacted for reasons of public policy. It will be noticed that this section runs counter to the well-known equitable principle that the Court would give effect to the real and not to the nominal title. It is perfectly true that inasmuch as this section contravenes a well-established principle of equity, it must be strictly construed.2. The facts which give rise to these appeals are very brief. The plaintiff sued for possession alleging that he had been dispossessed some time before he filed the suit, and the suit was resisted by one of the defendants on the ground that he was a purchaser at a court-sale and a sale certificate had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Thakarshi Jaichand Shah and ors. Vs. Woman Pralhad Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom184; (1950)52BOMLR205
ORDERJ. Dixit, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letter Patent from a decision of Gajendragadkar J.2. There was at Nandurbar a firm of the name of Maganlal Natbabhai Oil Mill. The firm was composed of two partners, namely, Jayachand Somchand and Maganlal Nathabhai. In 1934 Jayachand Somchand filed against Maganlal Natbabhai a Suit No. 460 of 1934 for dissolution of the partnership and in the course of that suit a receiver was appointed. In 1935, the receiver appointed in Suit No. 460 of 1934 filed against a company called Jayachand Somchand Ginning Company a Suit No. 199 of 1985 to recover a sum of Rs. 6,600. The suit was filed against two persons, i.e., against Jayachand Somchand Vani as defendant 1 and Padamsi Jasraj Vani as defendant 2. On 23rd September 1937, a consent decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,475 and it was made payable in two sums of money, i.e., a sum of Rs. 3,825 to be paid by defendant 1 and a sum of Rs. 2,650 to be paid by the defendant G...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshchandra Ramchandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom246; (1950)52BOMLR229
Shah, J.1. The petitioner Rameshchandra was convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, of an offence under Section 18 (1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act XXIII (23) of 1931, for 'making' a pamphlet called 'Operation Asylum' sometime in the year 1946, and he was sentenced to refer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner has come to this Court in revision against the order of conviction and sentence.2. It is admitted that the petitioner was the author of the pamphlet in question. Section 18 (1), Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, provides:'Whoever makes, prints or otherwise produces, sells, distributes, publishes or publicly exhibits or keeps for sale, distribution or publication, any unauthorised news-sheet or newspaper, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.'Section 15 of the Act provides:'The Magistrate may, by order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to i...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Vassanji and anr. Vs. Tulsidas Damodar Ganatra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom321; (1950)52BOMLR349
Rajadhyaksha J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Small Cause Court, Bombay, which has been referred to a Division Bench by Shah J. The applicant in this case was a trustee of the late Rao Bahadur Seth Karamsey Damji Sanatorium which is situated near the Wilson College, Chowpatty. The sanatorium has certain rooms which are let out for a period of one month at a time, and according to the rules of the trust no occupant of the room may remain on the premises for more than three months. The opponent Tulsidas applied for one of the rooms on the ground of illness and produced a medical certificate in support of his application. He was thereupon assigned Room No. 26 for one month from 11th July 1948. The period of occupany was extended first up to 10th September and then up to 10th October 1948. As the opponent failed to vacate the premises on 10th October inspite of his undertaking and the conditions for the use of the sanatorium, a notice was served upon h...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalbhai Gokalbhai and ors. Vs. Shivabhai Dhoribhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom289; (1950)52BOMLR301
Chainani, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain properties which originally belonged to Gokalbhai Bapuji Patel. He had no issue. On 8th October 1895, he made a will with regard to these properties. They are referred to as lots Nos. 1 to 6 in the will. He stated in the will that his wife should take possession of all his properties after his death and should meet the expenses of his funeral ceremonies from lots Nos. 4 and 5. He further directed that his wife should maintain herself from the income of the remaining properties and that after her death, these properties should go to his two sisters, Jijiben and Raibaben. One of these properties, lot No. 6, had been mortgaged with possession, and in regard to that property he stated that it should be redeemed by his two sisters. At the end of the will, he stated that if his wife gave birth to a son or daughter after his death, he or she was to be the owner of all his properties. Gokalbhai died on 26th January 1897, leaving behi...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang and ors. Vs. the Crown
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1949
Reported in: 1951CriLJ1498
Hemeon, J.1. The applicants Bajrang and 12 others were committed by the First Class Magistrate, Wardha, to the Court of Session, Bajrang in respect of offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and the other applicants in respect of offences under Section 148 and Section 807 read with Sections 84 and 149 ibid. The Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, by his order dated 9th May 1949, held that the trial was to proceed with the aid of assessors in virtue of Rule 224 of the Rules & Orders (Criminal) and rejected the applicants' application for a jury trial, They have now come up in revision to this Court, and their main contention is that the first proviso to the aforesaid rule was ultra vires of the Provincial Government and could not override the provisions of Section 269 (8), Criminal P.C.2. Section 269 runs as follows:(1) The Provincial Government may, by order in the official Gazette, direct that the trial of all offences, or of any p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›