Mumbai Court August 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.
R.S. Rammohanrai Jaswantrai Desai and ors. Vs. Somabhai Nathabhai Pate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom161; (1950)52BOMLR97
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiffs under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of Gajendragadkar J., dismissing the appeal which the plaintiffs had brought against the decision of the Assistant Judge, Broach and Panch Mahals, by which he confirmed the trial Court's order rejecting the claim made by the plaintiffs for possession of survey No. 174. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovering possession of survey No. 174, as well as three other lands, survey NOS. 32, 45 and 60/6 from the defendants. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were their annual tenants. Survey no. 174 measures 9 acres and 14 gunthas or 16 3/4 bighas of land. Fourteen and three-fourths bighas out of this land were the subject-matter of litigation between the plaintiffs' ancestors and the defendants' grandfather in Civil Suit No. 54 of 1911. A compromise decree was passed in that suit on 13th February 1912, by which the grandfather of the present defendants, Bhi...
Jhaverilal Maganlal Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom119
Chagla, C.J.1 The prosecution alleged that the applicant before us carried on the business of a money-lender without obtaining a license and without keeping and maintaining the accounts as required by the Bombay Money-lenders' Act XXXI [311 of 1947. The contention of the accused was that he advanced moneys only on security and that he took security which was sufficient to cover the whole of the loan advanced by him to his customers, and the further contention of the accused was that the Money-lenders' Act only applied to cases where unsecured loans were made and not to cases where the loan advanced was a secured loan. The facts in this case are not in dispute, and the only question that arises, and the only question that has been argued, is the true interpretation of Act XXXI [31] of 1947,2. What we have to decide is, what is the true meaning according to the language used of the expression 'loan' as defined by the Bombay Money-lenders' Act, 'Loan' is defined as an advance at interest ...
Emperor Vs. Jhaverilal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR991
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The prosecution alleged that the applicant before us carried on the business of a money lender without obtaining a license and without keeping and maintaining the accounts as required by the Bombay Money-lenders' Act XXXI of 1947. The contention of the accused was that he advanced moneys only on security and that he took security which was sufficient to cover the whole of the loan advanced by him to his customers, and the further contention of the accused was that the Money-lenders' Act only applied to cases where unsecured loans were made and not to cases where the loan advanced was a secured loan. The facts in this case are not in dispute, and the only question that arises, and the only question that has been argued, is the true interpretation of Act XXXI of 1947.2. What we have to decide is, what is the true meaning according to the language used of the expression 'loan' as defined by the Bombay Money-lenders' Act. 'Loan' is defined as an advance at interest by w...
Gurupadappa Shivlingappa Vs. Akbar Sayad Budan Kadri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom252; (1950)52BOMLR143
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff filed a salt, being suit No. 272 of 1946, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belgaum, seeking to obtain possession of certain premises from the defendant on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant and that the tenancy was duly terminated by notice.2. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he was an annual tenant and the tenancy was not duly terminated. Daring the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a compromise, the terms of which are as follows:'(1) The defendant admits that he is the monthly tenant of the plaintiff, The defendant do deliver up possession of the suit property to the plaintiff before 31st January 1948.(2) The defendant has paid the rent up to the end of March 1947 to the plaintiff. The defendant do forthwith pay the amount of rent remaining due up to this day and he do pay to the plaintiff rent of each month up to 31st January 1918, in advance on the first day of each of the several months.'This...
Jaikrishna Vs. Crown and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom99; 1950CriLJ607
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Jaikrishna of Anjan-gaon was convicted and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment under B. 406, Penal Code by the Second Class Magistrate, Daryapur; and in appeal the appellate Magistrate, Amraoti, affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of bb. 600. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.2. Although the complainant Mohanlal (P.W. 1) claimed that the applicant was hia servant and in that capacity used to sell, buy or pawn gold and silver in Amraoti and elsewhere in bis behalf, the trial Court found that they were partners. The trial Court also found that the applicant bad misappropriated the following : (i) Rs. 300 on 10th September 1946, (ii) Rs. 642 on 8th October 1945. (iii) Rs. 400 and BSection 1662 on 19th January 1946, (iv) a gold kardora worth Rs. 600 on 7 th October 1945.3. The appellate Magistrate found in his own words and figures:It h thus clear that the appellant misappropriated the kardora I...
Kishori Shetty Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom221; (1950)52BOMLR29
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 5th Court, Bombay, convicting the accused under Section 43 (1), Abkari Act and sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The accused was charged with being in possession of 12 bottles of whisky, one bottle of madeira, one bottle of Cream de Menthe and one bottle of sherry, the possession being in excess of what was permissible under the law.2. This appeal has been argued mainly on the question as to whether the Provincial Legislature has the competence to control or restrict the possession by a citizen in respect of foreign liquor. In order to understand this argument we must first look at the scheme of the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. V [6] of 1878), with which we are concerned, and the preamble of that Act states:'Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to the import, export, transport, m...
Ganpatram Dinaram Agarwal Vs. Mt. Rambai W/O Bechharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom20; 1950CriLJ267
ORDERHemeon J.1. The applicant Ganpatram was convicted and acntenced to pay fines of Ra. 300-0.0 and Ra. 200-0-0 Under Sections 211 and 600, Penal Code respectively by (he First Claas Magistrate, Bilaspur; and in appeal the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Bilnapur, affirmed the convio-tiona but set aside the sentence awarded under 6. 600. The applicant has now come up in mi. sion to this Court.2. On 22nd May 1947, the applicant made a report vide Ex. P-l to the police that on the previous night there had been a house-breaking at his house in Kota and that clothes, bedding and ornaments, including a kakni, worth H9. 35-8-0 had been removed. Dating the subsequent investigation the applicant told Misbrilal (P.W. 2) Sub-Inspector, that Rambai (P.W. 3),hiserat-wbile mistress, was the thief and when her house was searched, clothes and ornaments were found there, She had also pawned a kakni two months previously with Rameshwar (P.W. 1) for EB. 3-00 The investigation revealed that there had n...
Santosh Kumari Lalchand Mehra Vs. Chimanlal Munilal Kapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom307; (1950)52BOMLR394
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, a minor by her next friend her father, against the respondent for a declaration that the marriage under the Special Marriage Act III [3] of 1872 alleged to have been solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 17th September 1948, is null and void and of no legal effect whatever.2. The petitioner and her father and the whole family came away from Amritsar to Bombay about a year and a half ago owing to the Hindu Muslim riots which took place there after the partition of India. They resided at Shivaji Park, Dadar, in a building by name Usha Nivas, and it was during this period that the incident which is complained about took place. The respondent was their neighbour at Amritsar. He had been employed in the shop of the petitioner's father and is alleged to have rendered them considerable aid in the evacuation of their property and persons from Amritsar when the riots took place. He appears to have renewed his acqu...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›