Mumbai Court February 1949 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.
Ben Madhu and anr. Vs. Bai Mahakore and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom66
Gajendragadkar J.1. The short question which arises in these appeals is one of succession under Hindu law. The contest is between the sisters on the one hand and the daughter's daughter on the other. This point arises in this way :2. The property in suit originally belonged to Prabhashankar on whose death it devolved upon his widow Kashi. While Kashi was in possession of this property as a limited owner she sold the same to the defendants under two sale deeds dated 23th January 1941, and 31st January 1941, for Rs. 400 and Rs. 1000 respectively. Subsequently Kashi died on 9th July 1941, leaving her surviving her daughter's daughter Madhu, and the present plaintiffs who are the sisters of her deceased husband. The present appeals arise from suits filed by the sisters claiming to recover possession of the properties left by their deceased brother on the allegation that the sales effected by Kashi in favour of the defendants were not for legal necessity and as such not binding on them. The...
Rai Harendra Lal Roy Bahadur Estates Ltd. Vs. Hem Chandra Naskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR960
John Beaumont, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal to His Majesty in Council, namely, Nos. 16,17 and 18 of 1945, from a judgment and decrees, all dated June 7, 1945, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed the judgment and decrees, all dated November 7, 1941, of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, 24 Parganas, delivered and passed in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1-894), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'2. The property acquired consisted of 3 plots of beel (marsh lands) of which the appellant was the owner to the extent of four-fifth shares, and of which the respondents were the tenants under mokorari mourasi leases (permanent, heritable arid transferable tenures at a fixed rent) granted to their predecessor in title by predecessors in title of the appellant.3. The question for determination relates to the apportionment of compensation awarded under the Act as between the appellant as proprietor and the respondents as tenants, and the answer to this ques...
Sumatibai Waman Kirtikar Vs. Anant Balkrishna Shirgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom402; (1949)51BOMLR788
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent appeal is whether a compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration.2. The plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises executed a lease in favour of the defendant on April 1, 1943, which expired by efflux of time on March 31, 1944. As the defendant did not hand over possession, the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on April 16, 1944, On April 16, 1945, a consent decree was arrived at between the parties and it is this decree which calls for an interpretation at our hands. By this decree the defendant agreed to continue to occupy the property which had been leased to him and the plaintiff agreed that the defendant should continue to occupy the property from April 1, 1944 to June 30, 1947. The defendant further agreed to give vacant possession to the plaintiff of the property in suit on June 30, 1947, and the defendant agreed that he would pay to the plaintiff the rent of th...
Bhuboni Sahu Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR955
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated September 19, 1947, dismissing an appeal against the judgment and order of the Court of the Sessions Judge of Ganjam-Puri dated July 28, 1947, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be allowed and would state their reasons later. This they now proceed to do.2. It is not in dispute that on October II, 1946, one Kalia Behara was brutally murdered at a place between Berhampur, where he lived and carried on business as a jutka driver, and Golantra, to which he was driving with passengers in his Jutka. It is unnecessary to refer to the details of the murder; though it may be noted that the motive atrributed to the appellant was that he is a relation of acc...
The Bombay Garage Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1949
Reported in: (1953)IILLJ14Bom
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a rule for a writ of certiorari against the industrial tribunal, Bombay, consisting of Mr. P.S. Bakhale in respect of an award made by the tribunal on 20 November, 1948. The petitioners are the Bombay Garage Limited. They commenced business as a limited company on 1 April, 1945 and took over the business of Messrs. F.M. Chinoy and Co. Ltd., who are the proprietors of a concern known as the Bombay Garage. In July, 1946, certain disputes arose between the petitioners and their employees, and by a notification dated 20 March 1948 the provincial Government referred the dispute to the respondent. The demands of the workers were set out in annexure (A) to the said notification and the 3 relevant demands for the purpose of the present petition are as follows:(3) Dearness allowance at the minimum rate of Rupees 1/8 per day should be paid to every workman with effect from 1 January, 1947. * * *(9) Gratuity at the rate of one month's salary for every completed year o serv...
Champaklal Chhabilrai Bhatt Vs. the Commonwealth Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR781
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This revision application has been referred to a division bench by Mr. Justice Weston as it involves a somewhat difficult) question of the interpretation of Section 19 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act of 1947 as to under what conditions a pending suit must be transferred from the ordinary civil Court to a special Court. The suit out of which the present revision application arises was filed on a promissory note executed by defendant No. 2 personally and on behalf of Messrs. Dave & Company, Ahmedabad, who are defendant No. 1 and by defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 admitted the execution of the note, but contended that the promissory note was taken from him by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. After the written statement was filed, defendant No. 2 made an application asking that the suit be transferred to the Debt Adjustment Board at Ahmedabad where this defendant was ...
Champaklal Chhabilrai Bhatt Vs. Commonwealth Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom84
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This revision application has been referred to a division bench by Weston J. as it involves a somewhat difficult question of the interpretation of Section 19, Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Belief Act of 1947 as to under what conditions a pending suit must be transferred from the ordinary civil Court to a special Court. The suit out of which the present revision application arises was filed on a promissory note executed by defendant 2, personally and on behalf of Messrs Dave & Company, Ahmedabad, who are defendant 1 and by defendant 8. Defendant 2, admitted the execution of the note, but contended that the promissory note was taken from him by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona. After the written statement was filed, defendant 2, made an application asking that the suit be transfer, red to the Debt Adjustment Board at Ahmedabad where this defendant was said to reside claiming that he ...
The Prince Line, Limited Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR1004
Bhagwati, J.1. [His Lordship after stating facts as above proceeded.] This being the position, it remains to be determined how far the defendants or one or more of them are liable to the plaintiffs on the two counts, nam ely negligence and breach of duty which are charged against them in the plaint. Before, however, I come to determine the question of their liability to the plaintiffs, I shall first of all deal with the point of limitation which ha s been urged by the defendants. The point of limitation arises in this way. As noted before the suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs on November 19, 1943, under a special power-of-attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Messrs. Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd. The suit as filed was well within six months of the accrual of the cause of the action, viz. the damage by the fire on May 25, 1943, within the meaning of Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act and if the suit had been held to be properly filed on November 19, 1943, there was n...
The Prince Line Ltd. Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom130
Bhagwati, J.1. After stating the facts His Lordship proceeded.] This being the position, it remains to be determined how far the defendants or one or more of them are liable to the plaintiffs on the two counts, namely, negligence and breach of duty which are charged against them in the plaint. Before, however, I come to determine the question of their liability to the plaintiffs, I shall first of all deal with the point of limitation which has been urged by the defendants. The point of limitation arises in this way. As noted before the suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs on 19th November 1948, under a special power-of-attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Messrs. Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd. The suit as filed was well within six months of the accrual of the cause of the action, viz., the damage by the fire on 25th May 1943, within the meaning of Section 87, Bombay Port Trust Act, and if the suit had been held to be properly filed on 19th November 1943, there was nothing m...
The Central Government of India Vs. Chhotalal Chhaganlal Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom359; (1949)51BOMLR615
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad confirming the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, refusing to stay the proceedings in a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Central Government of India. The plaintiff was a subscriber of telephone No. 5019 and had executed a telephone hiring contract in respect of that telephone. It was signed by him in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any partnership firm. It appears that the telephone was used by other parties who had printed its number on their business letters. The Executive Engineer thereupon served the plaintiff a notice under Clause 15 of the conditions of agreement determining the contract on the expiration of seven days thereof. The telephone was accordingly disconnected on October 28, 1946. On November 2, 1946, the plaintiff gave a notice of a suit under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Director General of Posts and T...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›