Mumbai Court May 1949 Judgments
Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhoy Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR1
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against' two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated June 17, 1947, setting aside two orders of the Court of the Presidency Magistrate. 6th Additional Court, dated September 16, 1946, whereby two prosecutions of the appellant for the offences of hoarding and profiteering under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 1943, Ordinance No. XXXV of 1943 (hereinafter called 'the Ordinance'), were held to be barred try reason of the provisions of Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since in the view of the learned Magistrate the accused had been previously tried and acquitted on exactly similar charges and facts by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The real question before the Board is whether in the circumstances of the case the plea of autre fois acquit was open to the appellant, and that question in essence depends upon whether the earlier prosecution was before a Court of competent jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Sabde and ors. Vs. the Crown
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom12; 1950CriLJ254
ORDERHidayatullah, J.1. These are 21 applicants who have been convicted Under Section 188, Penal Code and Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, some of whom were sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act and a fine of Es. 50 Under Section 188, Penal Code, while the rest have been sentenced to pay Rs. 50 fine Under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act and to a further fine of RSection 10 Under Section 188, Penal Code.2. The facta are admitted. The Provincial Government declared the organisation called the Rashtriya Swayam Bewak Sangh (shortly R. S. S.) as an unlawful body under Section 16/16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, The members of the sangh tried for a time to get the ban lifted but thereafter they decided to resume the activities and to offer satyagraha. The satyagraha appears to have been peaceful and an intimation was sent in advance to the District Magistrate, Akola. These applicants along with some others assemb...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikhushroo Pirojsha Ghiara Vs. the C.P. Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom134; (1950)52BOMLR189
Fazl Ali, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave of this Court and it is directed against a judgment and order of a division bench of the Bombay High Court confirming the judgment and order of a single Judge of that Court by which he dismissed the appellant's motion for setting aside an insolvency notice taken out by the respondent-company.2. The respondent-company is a private limited liability company in which there are only four shareholders, viz. Mrs. Byramji, Mr. and Mrs. Cassad and the appellant. In November, 1945, the company filed a suit (No. 1726 of 1945) in the High Court at Bombay against the appellant claiming a number of reliefs, which need not be set out here. Subsequently, Mrs. Byramji and Mr. and Mrs. Cassad applied to be made parties to the suit and they were joined as plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. After the suit had been heard for some time, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and a consent decree was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Thota China Subha Rao Vs. Mattapalli Raju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR181
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. These are two appeals from one judgment of the High Court of Madras, disposing of two appeals brought to it from two suits filed in the Court of Coconada. In the High Court the appeals were heard together. The material facts lie in a small compass. As the parties in the two suits and appeals are differently arrayed, it will be convenient to refer to them as the mortgagor, the mortgagees and the lesSections2. On January 2, 1914, the mortgagor acting for himself and as the guardian of his undivided minor son granted a mortgage of 51.20 acres of Inam lands along with other lands (which need not be hereafter referred to as they were later on disposed of by consent of parties) to secure a sum of Rs. 30,000 lent by the mortgagees. In respect of the suit lands it was a non-possessory mortgage. On November 27, 1915, he executed another mortgage with possession of the suit lands for Rs. 4,000, but as the lands were in the occupation of the lessees under a lease for 15...
Tag this Judgment!Madholal Sindhu Vs. the Official Assignee of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR906
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a division bench of the High Court at Bombay setting aside a decree of a single Judge of that Court. The material facts are these :-2. By January 1940 Mr. Meyer Nissim (hereafter referred to as Nissim), defendant No. 4, had borrowed from defendant No. 2 bank Rs. 75,000 on the security of 26,000 shares of the first defendant company and passed two letters of hypothecation in the same terms in favour of the bank. The letter of hypothecation provided that all securities which may from time to time be held by the bank of Nissim's account shall be security for repayment of the outstanding general balance of all and every loan or account of his with the bank, including interest. It further provided as follows :-' With power to you (the bank) at your discretion to sell or a sufficient portion of such securities in the event of my not maintaining a margin of 40 per cent, on the market value of the securities for the time being or ...
Tag this Judgment!JainaraIn Ram Lundia Vs. Surajmull Sagarmull
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR979
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of the Calcutta High Court, dated June 18, 1946, affirming with slight variation, the decision of a single Judge of the Original Side of that Court, dated August 14, 1944.The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was one for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain shares in a private limited company, together with fractional interest in a partnership business, and it was commenced by two plaintiffs, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal, against four defendants, two of whom, viz., defendants Nos. '5 and 4, figure as appellants before us. Of the other two defendants, defendant No. 2 is not a party to this appeal at all, inasmuch as the suit against him was withdrawn and dismissed in the trial Court and his name was struck off from the list of defendants altogether. As regards defendant No. 1, though he was retained as a party, the plaintiff's gave up their claim against him before the hearing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›