Mumbai Court December 1950 Judgments
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Ambalal Trikamlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom394; (1951)53BOMLR582; ILR1951Bom768
Dixit J.1. These five appeals which arise in execution proceedings raise a common question of law & they may conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. The question is whether in the case of a decree which awards interest on the deoretal amount until payment, interest ceases to run from the date of deposit into the Court, although notice of the deposit has not been given to a judgment-creditor. In order to understand the question it will, I think, suffice to mention the facts in F. A. No. 517. The facts are in the main not in dispute.2. In a compensation case (NO. 176 of 1942) the District Court, Ahmedabad, passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 16,947-9-0 in place of the amount of Rs. 18,668-0-0 awarded by way of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad. It appears that interest was awarded at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum on the excess amount of Rs. 3,285-9-0 from 28-3-1942, which was the date on which possession was taken till the date of payment. There w...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Dubash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1950
Reported in: (1951)53BOMLR494
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay delivered on a reference by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Indian Income-tax Act. The material facts are these. The assessees (appellants,) are the executors of the will of Mr. J.K. Dubash who died on April 9, 1942, having made his last will on April 8, 1942. Probate of the will was issued to the executors on August 10, 1942. During his lifetime, the testator carried on the business of shipping agents. Clause 13 of the will contains directions about carrying on this business of the testator till its disposal. It directs the executors to carry on the business as a going concern after his death with power to make fresh contracts and discharge the existing and future liabilities and all other usual and necessary powers, unless special circumstances arose which, in the opinion of the executors, made it expedient to sell the business earlier. This business was to be carried on for a period not exceeding...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Vs. Sonabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ448
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State, Government against an acquittal of the offence under Section 5(2) of the Central Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1919, for selling adulterated milk.2. It is admitted that the 1st respondent lives in the upper storey of a house in front of which the milk is said to have been sold. According to the prosecution, whose case is proved by Dhawle (P.W. 1) and Abdul Rahman (P.W. 2) and corroborated by Anant (P.W. 3), the respondent sells milk daily in front of her house on an 'ota'. P.W. instates that on the 10th November 1949 at 9.30 in the morning he saw her selling milk there, so he went and asked her for a sample. She told him that water had been added to the milk. He said that nevertheless he required a sample. Accordingly three bottles were produced. The witness says that these bottles had been cleaned beforehand and were dry. Some 5 to 6 drops of formalin were added to each bottle and then the milk which was being sold was poured in...
Tag this Judgment!Province of Bombay Vs. Madhukar Ganpat Nerlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Bom37; (1951)53BOMLR754; ILR1952Bom269
Vyas, J.[1] These are two appeals arising out of civil suit No. 1483 of 1945 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, One of them (No. 31 of 1948) is filed by the Province of Bombay and the other (NO. 62 of 1948) is filed by Madhukar Ganpat Nerlekar, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was dismissed from Government service by the order of the Inspector-General of Police, Bombay, dated 12 11-1913, after departmental enquiry which was held by the District Superintendent of Police, Poona. The plaintiff has filed Suit No. 1483 of 1945 for recovering Rs. 48,475 by way of damages for wrongful dismissal from service, future interest at 6 per cent, on that amount and costs. In the alternative, ho has asked for a declaration that the order of his dismissal was void and inoperative in law and that he is entitled to be reinstated in service and receive the arrears of salary as if ho had not been dismissed from service.[2] The plaintiff's contentions are that the enquiry which was condu...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Mallapa and ors. Vs. Rudragauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom288; (1950)52BOMLR612; ILR1950Bom674
ORDERDixit, J. 1. [After stating facts the judgment proceeded: ] As regards civil Appln. No. 1500 of 1949, when the matter was last argued, Mr.Gumaste for the opponent conceded that the learned Registrar has power to grant stay of proceedings under Order 41, Rule 5, C. P. C., but at the hearing of the appln. he contends that the learned Registrar had no jurisdiction to make an order under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 5. Now, under the rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, 1936, power is given to the Registrar to dispose of certain applns. & Rule 11 (n) refers to applns. fororders under Order 41, Rules 5, 6 & 10, C. P. C., &the; question is whether the learned Registrar has power to make an order staying proceedings pursuant to a preliminary decree. It is not disputed that with respect to the decree for a sum of Rs. 7,500, the learned Registrar would have such power because that would be in respect of stay of execution. 2. As the question is one of practic...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Gopal Vs. Moreshwar Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom352; (1951)53BOMLR310; ILR1951Bom385
ORDERChagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises in this Civil Revn. Appln. as to whether the suit filed is covered by Section 7(v) or Section 7(xi)(cc), Court-fees Act. 2. A few facts may be stated. Deft. 4 was alessee of defts. 1, 2 & 3 under a lease dated 28-8-1941, expiring on 29-3-1949. Pending this lease the pltff. passed a rent note in respect of thesame property to defts. 1, 2 & 3 on 9 1-1942, & under this rent note he was to get the propertyfrom 30-3-1949. The rent fixed under this rent note was Bs. 800 for the first year & the rent note was for ten years. As deft. 4 failed to vacate & give possession to the pltff' on 30-3-1949, the pltf.after giving notice both to his landlords defts. 1 to 8 & to deft. 4, filed a suit on 12-4-1949. The pltff. valued the suit for o.-fs. & for jurisdiction at Rs. 800 being the rent fixed under the rent note. It was contended by the defts. that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction was erroneous, that the learned Junior Civil Judg...
Tag this Judgment!The Anglo-french Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom130; (1951)53BOMLR308; ILR1951Bom648
1. This appln. in revn. is from an order made by the Principal Judge, City Civil Ct., refusing an appln. made by the pltf. for refund of c. fs. levied for the institution of a suit. The learned Principal Judge took the view that the Ct. had no jurisdiction to try the suit & made an order under Order 7, Rule 10, for the return of the plaint to be presented be the proper Ct. & after the order had been made the pltf. applied that he should be refunded the c. fs. which had been paid by him. The learned Principal Judge has taken the view that he had no power under the Court fees Act or under the rules framed by Govt. under Section 11(2), Bombay City Civil Courts Act to order any' refund. But the learned Judge, with respect to him, has failed be consider the inherent powers of the Ct. to do justice under Section 151, Civil P. C.2. Mr. Dabar who appears for the State does not contest the proposition that the pltf, would be entitled to a refund of the c. fs. But his contention is that the orde...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Hiralal Manilal Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom369; (1951)53BOMLR268; ILR1951Bom626
Bavdekar, J. 1. The opponent in this case one Hiralal Manilal Mody is a sweetmeat seller. He prepares sweet-meats & also sells them. Upon information received, the Inspector of Rationing raided his residential premises, his shop, where he sells sweet-meats & his godown. Nothing was found in the shop which could be objected to under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Bowers) Act, 1946, but in the residential premises of the opponent there were found 165 lbs. of wheat & wheat flour & 277 lbs. of rice. Other things were also found, but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of the present appeal. The opponent in this case was possessed in respect of the persons who were living with him in his residential premises nine ration cards & it is not in dispute that if the opponent was entitled to have in his possession all that would be warranted by these nine ration cards he was in possession of 106 lbs. of rice in excess of what he could possess. The opponent's defence, however, w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›