Mumbai Court October 1950 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.
Motilal Fulchand and anr. Vs. Gita Rama and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Bom217; (1951)53BOMLR299
Bhagwati, J. [1] These two sets of appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned Special Judge of the Special Tribunal Court at Mangalwodha. Suits Nos. 1894 of 1937 and 1822 of 1938 were filed by one Bai Gita, the daughter of Gundi, against the firm of Jaynarayan Jagannath Marwadi, the partners of that firm and the alienees from the firm of certain properties and lands situate at Mangalwedha. One Appa had three sons, Gundi, Rama and Sada. There was a severance of joint status between the members of the joint family in year 1892 and certain documents were executed by and between the parties. Gundi thereafter in years 1898, 1900 and 1901 executed mortgages in favour of defendant 1 to secure repayment of certain monies due and owing by him to the firm. He thus mortgaged seven lands to defendant 1 on three several dates in the years 1898.1900 and 1901 and his two brothers Rama and Sada were parties to these documents in their capacity as-sureties. Gundi also executed a possessory mortg...
Ambaram Kalidas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom207; [1951]19ITR227(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It is a dealer in cloth and was taxed under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. Its accounting year was Samvat year, and the joint family was disrupted on Aso Vad 30th, Samvat year 2000, that is to say on the October 17, 1944, and on Kartak Sud 1st, Samvat year 2001, the joint family business was taken over by a firm consisting of the coparceners of the Hindu undivided family. The claim of the assessee was that the income earned by the Hindu undivided family for the Samvat year 2000 should be totally exempt under the provisions of Section 25(4). This claim was rejected by the Tribunal, and the question that we have to consider is whether on a proper construction of Section 25(4) the contention of the assessee should be upheld. 2. The scheme of Section 25 seems to be that it deals under sub-section (1) with the case of a business which is discontinued a...
Ambaram Kalidas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom297; (1951)53BOMLR86
Chagla, C.J. 1. The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It is a dealer in cloth & was taxed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1918. Its accounting years were samvat years, & the joint family was disrupted on Aso Vad 30th, Samvat, year 2000, that is to say on 17-10-1944, & on Kartak Sud 1st, Samvat year 2001, the joint family business was taken over by a firm consisting of the coparceners of the Hindu undivided family. The claim of the assessee was that the income earned by the Hindu undivided family for the Samvat year 2000 should be totally exempt under the provisions of Section 25 (4). This claim was rejected by the Tribunal, & the question that we have to consider is whether on a proper construction of Section 25 (4) the contention of the assessee should be upheld.2. The scheme of Section 25 seems to be that it deals under Sub-section (1) with the case of a business which is discontinued & which has not been ...
D.Z. Prabhu Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom308; (1951)53BOMLR69; ILR1951Bom200
Chainani, J.1. This is a reference by the Addl. Ses-J., Sholapur, recommending, on an appln. made to him by one Mr. Prabhu, that his conviction under Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the sentence passed upon him should be set aside.2. The charge against the appct. was that on 11-8-1947, when he was serving as Police Inspector at Sholapur, he asked his orderly constable Yemnaji to drive his car from the Police Chowki to his bungalow. Yemnaji had no license. The appct. was, therefore, prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Section 5, Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that no owner or a person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not possess a driving licence to drive the vehicle. The appct. pleaded not guilty to the charge. He denied that he asked Yemnaji to drive the car to his bungalow. He stated that Yemnaji had taken away the car on his own intiative without his knowledge. This defence was not accepted. The trying Mag. held that Yem...
G.J. Desai Vs. Abdul Mazid Kadri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom156; (1951)53BOMLR257; ILR1952Bom580
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Bhagwati J. direciing that a writ of manda-mus be issued under Section 45, Specific Relief Act againat the Special Land Acquisition Officer, City of Bombay & the Bombay Suburban District 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award under the Land Acquisition Act. An appln. was made to him by the petnrs. to make a reference to the H. C. under Section 18 of the Act. The officer took the view that the petnr.'s appln. was barred by limitation & refused to make a reference. Thereupon the petnrs. came to this Ct. with a petn. under Section 45 asking the Ct. to order the Officer to make a reference under Section 18. The learned Judge took the view that it was not open to the officer to consider whether the appln. was barred by limitation or not, & that once an appln. was made to him under Section 18, it was incumbent upon him to make a reference and the question whether the appln. was barred or not was a question which had to be deter...
Fakirbhai Bhagwandas and anr. Vs. Maganlal Haribhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom380; (1951)53BOMLR163; ILR1951Bom425
Bhagwati, J. 1. This is a second appeal against the decision of the learned Dist. J. Surat who modified the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge at Bulsar in favour of the pltfs. The facts which gave rise to this second appeal may be shortly stated as under. 2. The suit land is an alluvial land adjoining a piece of land out of survey No. 302/1/1 of Bhadeli Jagalala measuring about 15 acres. The adjacent land of about 8 acres out of this survey No. 802/1/1 belonged to certain Kolis & it was purchased from them by deft. 1 by a sale-deed dated 25 9-1937. The Kolis were, however, not in possession of that piece of land but one Mrs. Ansell was in possession of the same. It was, therefore, agreed between deft. 1 & the Kolis that if the Kolis got possession of the said land, they should hand it over to deft. 1 or deft. 1 should obtain possession of the land by lawful means from Mrs. Ansell. Mrs. Ansell, however, continued in possession of the same & the possession of that piece of land co...
In Re: Pandurang Kashinath More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom30; (1951)53BOMLR65; ILR1951Bom190
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The detenu was detained on 9-7-1949, under Section 2(1)(a), Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. An order under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was served upon him on 26-2-1950, and the grounds for his detention were served upon him on 18-8-1960,:2. Mr. Sule's contention on behalf of the applicant is that in furnishing the grounds twenty days after the service of the order there was a substantial non-compliance with Section 7 of the Act and also with Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The section and the article provide that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Therefore the grounds have to be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be and it is the furnishing of...
Raghunath Hanumant Mane Vs. Sadashiv Damodar Datar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom270; (1950)52BOMLR871; ILR1951Bom114
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff to recover Kg. 5,025.2.3 from the defendant. This claim haa been substantially decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona and the defendant challenges this decree in the present appeal. At the hearing of that appeal, a preliminary objection has been takenly the respendent that the appeal against the decree in suit does not lie to this Court and should have been filed in the District Court at Poona. This preliminary objection is based upon the provisions of Bombay Act (LIV [54] of 1949). The suit was filed on 21-3-1918, and has been decreed on 31-3-1950. Bombay Act (LIV [54] of 1949) came in force on 1-3-1950, and the argument for the respondent is that the decree under appeal is governed by the provisions of the said Act and under Section 26, Bombay Civil Courts Act, as amended by Bombay Act (LIV [64] of 1949) an appeal against a decree like the present would lie to the District Court...
Laxman Gopal Vs. Vishnu Raghoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom355; (1951)53BOMLR315; ILR1951Bom538
ORDERGajendragadkar, J.1. These three revnl. applns. raise an interesting question as to whether the mulgenis are tenants within the meaning of Bombay Act XXIX [29] of 1939. The petnrs. in all the three cases before me are mulgenis. Three suits had been filed against them by their respective landlords claiming rent from them on the basis of an agreement between them. The mul-genis resisted the claim on the ground that the rent under the agreement could not be recovered having regard to the provisions of Section 15 (2), Bombay Tenancy Act. That naturally raised the question as to whether the mulgenis were tenants within the meaning of Section 2A of the said Act. The learned Judge who tried the three suits came to the conclusion that they are not tenants within the meaning of the said section & as such are not entitled to the protection of Section 15. He has, therefore, decreed the pltfs.' claims. In their present revn. applns. before me the mulgenis have contended that the learned Judge...
In Re: Prahlad Krishna Kurne
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom25; (1951)53BOMLR61; ILR1951Bom181
Chagla, C.J. 1. An application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., made by the petitioner came before Dixit and Shah JJ. and was rejected by them on 12-6-1950. This application is made by the petitioner for a review of that order. It is very fairly conceded by Mr. Sule that in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Emperor v. Malhari 50 Bom. L. R. 188 : A. I. R. 1948 Bom 826: 49 Cri. L. J. 460 , such a review application would not lie. A further application is made bythe petitioner that although a review may not lie it is the right of the petitioner to make an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution to successive Judges of this Court, and in pursuance of that right he is entitled to be heard by Judges other than Judges who made the order.2. A very able argument has been advanced before us by Mr. Sule which deserves very careful consideration at our hands. It is argued that although under Section 491 successive applications ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›