Mumbai Court March 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.
Sridhar Krishnarao Date Vs. the Crown
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ95
ORDERHemeon J.1. The applicant Shridhar Krishnarao Date was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Section 100 under Section 6 (1), Central Provinces and Berar Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, by the Second Class Magistrate, Wardba and his appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Wardha. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. On 14th January 1948, 'harijan day' was observed in mauza Nagjbari, Wardha Tahsil, and at other places in accordance with the direction of the Provincial Government and the Local Gram Congress Committee issued a proclamation to the effect that the harijans could visit the temples in the bait under the terms of 8. 9 of the aforesaid Act. On that night a procession of harijans and caste Hindus went to the Bhri Mahadeo temple, but the applicant denied entry to the harijans and relyiug on the gift deed Ex. D 1 claimed that the temple was his private property. The report Ex. P-l was there, after made at the Pulgaon police station and ...
Sir Fazal Ibrahim Rahimtoola Vs. Appabhai G. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom339; (1949)51BOMLR510
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Bhagwati making an order for the public examination of Sir Fazal Ibrahim Rahimtoola on a summons taken out by the official liquidator of the Associated Banking Corporation of India, Ltd., under Section 196 of the Indian Companies Act.2. The order is contested by Sir Jamshedji mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the order made was without jurisdiction. Now, jurisdiction of the Court to make an order for the public examination of a director-and Sir Fazal was a director of the company with which we are concerned in this case-is founded on Section 196 of the Indian Companies Act. That section provides that 'when an order has been made for winding up a company by the Court, and the official liquidator has applied to the Court stating that in his opinion a fraud has been committed by...', then the section goes on to state the class of persons who might be guilty of fraud, and then it goes on, 'the Court may, after...
Pingle Venkat Rama Reddy Vs. Sir Padampat Singhania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR529
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. These two appeals arise from a common judgment given by Mr. Justice Bhagwati, and a few facts must be stated in order to appreciate what the real contentions between the parties were. One P.V. Reddy, who was a director of the Bombay Life Assurance Co., Ltd., held 534 shares on which Rs. 25 per share had been paid up, and there was an uncalled for liability of Rs. 75 on each share. On July 25, 1944, Reddy sold through his constituted attorney Bhaidas Gulabdas 484 out of these shares, retaining for himself 50 shares which, it might be mentioned, were necessary to be held by a director as qualifying shares. Reddy executed 5 blank transfer forms in respect of these 484 shares-4 for 100 shares each and 1 for 84 shares. These blank transfer forms were ultimately filled in in the name of Sir Padampat Singhania, who was shown as the purchaser of these shares. The company some time thereafter decided on increasing its capital. Sanction for such increase was applied for to th...
Pingle Venkat Rama Reddy Vs. Padampat Singhania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom76
Chagla, C.J.1. These two appeals arise from a common judgment given by Bhagwati J., and a few facts must be stated in order to appreciate what the real contentions between the parties were. One P. V. Reddy, who was a director of the Bombay Life Assurance Co., Ltd., held 534 shares on which Rs. 25 per share had been paid up, and there was an uncalled for liability of Rs. 75 on each share. On 25th July 1944, Reddy sold through his constituted attorney Bhaidas Gulabdas 484 out of these shares, retaining for himself 60 shares which, it might be mentioned, were necessary to be held by a director as qualifying shares. Reddy executed 5 blank transfer forms in respect of these 484 shares--4 for 100 shares each and 1 for 84 shares. These blank transfer forms were ultimately filled in the name of Sir Padampat Singhania, who was shown as the purchaser of these shares. The company some time thereafter decided on increasing its capital. Sanction for such increase was applied for to the Central Gove...
Ghelabhai Mahasukhram Roy Vs. Keshavdev Madanlal Nemani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom343; (1949)51BOMLR499
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dismissing a petition of the appellant to set aside an award. The award came to be made in these circumstances. The appellant engaged the respondent as his broker and the respondent put through many transactions under the rules and bye-laws of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association of which he is a member. On October 23, 1947, there was an outstanding transaction of purchases of 125 Tata Deferred shares. According to the broker, on November 5, 1947, the appellant gave him instructions to close this outstanding transaction by a sale of 125 Tata Deferred shares, and pursuant to these instructions the broker closed the outstanding transaction. As a result of this a certain amount became due and payable by the constituent to the broker. The broker made a demand, the constituent failed to make the payment, the matter was referred to arbitration under Rule 117(a) of the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Asso...
Shivji Bhara and Co. Vs. Kanji Vasanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom337; (1949)51BOMLR515
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable in this Court or it should be transferred to the Court of Small Causes under the provisions of Bombay Act LVII of 1947. It would appear that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the defendants who are trustees of a charitable trust in respect of three godowns for some time prior to the explosion that took place in Bombay on April 14, 1944. In the explosion two of the godowns were destroyed. The plaintiffs vacated the third godown as it was required by the defendants for storing certain articles. Thereafter the plaintiffs wanted to resume possession of the third godown, and according to the plaintiffs the defendants agreed to give possession of the third godown provided the plaintiffs not only paid the rent of Rs. 125 which was the proper rent, but also a pugree aggregating to Rs. 5,200 worked out on the basis of Rs. 400 being paid per month for a period of 13 month...
Hansabai Sayaji Payagude Vs. Ananda Ganuji Payagude
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom384; (1949)51BOMLR585; AIR 1949 Pat 256
Chainani, J.1. The facts of this case briefly are that on September 8, 1946, the complainant Hansabai filed a criminal complaint against the accused under Sections 447 and 504, Indian Penal Code, and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, before the First Class Magistrate, Haveli. This was dismissed as she was absent on the date of the hearing. Thereafter she brought a fresh complaint in the same Court. After recording the evidence adduced by her, the Magistrate discharged the accused on March 5, 1947. A fortnight later, on March 18, 1947, the complainant filed a third complaint on the same facts against the accused. This was transferred to the Third Class Magistrate, Haveli. The Magistrate decided to inquire into the case again and issued summonses to the accused. After the evidence, which the complainant produced, had been taken, the accused applied to the Magistrate that no charge should be framed, as he had previously been discharged on the same evidence. The Magistrate did not acc...
In Re: Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR578
Chainani, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. A complaint was filed against the three applicants under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, on May 7, 1948, in the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. After a few adjournments, the regular hearing of the case commenced on July 23, 1948, On that date the complainant was examined, and the case was adjourned to August 11, 1948, and subsequently to August 24, 1948. On the latter date the case had been fixed for hearing at 2 p.m. When the case was called out, the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed an order discharging the applicants under Section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant appeared before the Magistrate at 3 p.m. on the same day and requested that the order of discharge should be reviewed and that the complaint should be re-heard. In his application he stated that he was not able to attend the Court at 2 p.m., as he had to give evidence as a witness in a civil Court, The learned ...
In Re: Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom10
Chainani, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. A complaint was filed against the three applicants under Section 500, Penal Code, on 7th May 1948, in the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. After a few adjournments, the regular hearing of the case commenced on 23rd July 1948. On that date the complainant was examined, and the case was adjourned to 11th August 1948, and subsequently to 24th August 1948. On the latter date the case had been fixed for hearing at 2 p. m. When the case was called out, the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed an order discharging the applicants under Section 259, Criminal P. C. The complainant appeared before the Magistrate at 3 p. m. on the same day and requested that the order of discharge should be reviewed and that the complaint should be re-heard. In his application he stated that he was not able to attend the Court at 2 p. m. as he had to give evidence as a witness in a civil Court. The learned Magistrate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›