Mumbai Court February 1950 Judgments
Trimbak Shivrudra Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom203; 1950CriLJ1372
ORDERHemeon, J.1. This order will govern the decisions of Miscellaneous Criminal cases NoSection 18B, 209 and 229 of 1949 and 6 of 1960 also. In all these cases, orders in the nature of habeas corpus are sought Under Section 491, Criminal P. O. in respect of persons detained in different jails Under section a (1), Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 (LXil [62] of 1948, by order of the former Provincial Government.2. A preliminary point is raised before us to the effect that consequent on the inauguration of the Republic on 26th January 19J0, the Public Safety Act has become void as it is a law which is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution and that a writ of haleas corpus should be issued under Air. 226 of the Constitution in respect of each of the detenus.3. On behalf of the State Government it is argued that under Article 373 of the Constitution the President is clothed with the power of issuing an order for the continuance of detention of...
Tag this Judgment!Laduram Hajarimal Vs. Ramrao Jankiram Kadam and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom195; (1950)52BOMLR263
Chagla, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether when at a sale of land held under Section 155, Bombay Land Revenue Code, the land is purchased by Government on a nominal bid, that sale is, therefore, void or is voidable.2. The two appellants are purchasers from Government, who having purchased lands of a defaulter in payment of Abkari dues at a nominal bid of Re. 1, sold these lands to the appellants, and the sale is being challenged by the defaulter as being void. The plaintiff in the suit was an Abkari contractor and he failed to pay the Government dues amounting to about Rs. 9,000. Under Section 34, Abkari Act, all dues under the Act can be recovered by the Government as if they were arrears of land revenue. The mode of recovery under the Land Revenue Code is laid down in Section 150, and under Section 155, the Collector is given the right of selling the property of the defaulter. The rules framed Under Section 214, Land Revenue Code deal with the sales to be held...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnilal Kasturchand Vs. Dundappa Damappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom190; (1950)52BOMLR660; ILR1950Bom640
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional District Judge and First Class Subordinate Judge, Jamkhandi, dismissing the decree-holders' darkhast with costs.2. It appears that one Chunilal Kasturchand Marwadi and another obtained a decree against Dundappa Damappa Navalgi and others in Suit No. 249/1927 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum. Dundappa was a partner in a partnership firm going by the name of Bashetappa Muttur and Ohanbassappa Lakshethi & Co. which had business dealings with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover arrears due to them and impleaded, all the partners of the firm, including Dundappa who was defendant 5. Defendants 1 to 4 resided within the local limits of the special jurisdiction of the Belgaum Court. The other defendants, including defendant 5, did not reside within that jurisdiction, and an application was made under Section 20(b), Civil P. C., to obtain leave of the Court to proceed a...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Daulatram Vs. Suryajirao Ganpatrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom401; (1950)52BOMLR614
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Court at Jalgaon in App. No. 316 of 1940 reversing the decree of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Bhusawal in Suit No. 218 of 1939. The facts of the case must be stated in detail in order to appreciate the contentions raised.2. The Court of Wards assumed the management of the estate of one Ganpatrao Sagajirao Nimbalkar sometime in June 1907. The estate remained in the management of the Court of Wards till June 1917. The management was then withdrawn, and the estate was re-entrusted to Ganpatrao. By reason of the provisions of Section 40, proviso 3, Bombay Court of Wards Act, I [1] of 1905, no land-holder, who has been made a Government ward in pursuance of Section 9 (1) of the Act, is competent on the withdrawal of the superintendence of the Court of Wards to transfer or create any charge on or interest in his property or any part thereof beyond the term of his natural life, except with the previous sanction of the Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka and anr. Vs. Kapurchand Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom336; (1950)52BOMLR363; ILR1951Bom125
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of Bhagwati J., by which be made an order on a motion for contempt by which he ordered the committal of the appellants unless certain requisitions contained in the order were carried out within the time specified therein.[2] The suit which led to the taking out of this motion was for specific performance, and alternatively for damages. The plaintiffs were the lessees of a cinema known as the 'Paradise Cinema' and in the lease there was a clause which gave the plaintiffs an option to purchase the property. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that, on 3rd February 1942, the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale of the property in favour of the Paradise Cinema, Limited, without giving them the option to which they were entitled; and it was to enforce this option that the suit was filed. The answer given by the defendants was that the plaintiffs were informed of the agreement of sale with the Paradise Cinema, Limited, and that th...
Tag this Judgment!Maledath Bharathan Malyali Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom202; (1950)52BOMLR268
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., and the facts that give rise to this application are very striking and very significant. A public meeting was held at Lal Baug on the evening of 8th May 1949. The meeting was held under the auspices of various organisations and it was in connection with a hunger-strike that had been undertaken by certain detenus on 2nd May 1949. After the public meeting broke up, a procession was organised and the procession marched from Lal Baug to the Delisle Road maidan. There was an order of the Commissioner of Police banning all processions in that locality after 7 p.m., and the procession was taken out in contravention of the order of the Commissioner of Police. The police tried to stop the procession, but the processionists insisted on going on; thereupon a lathi charge was made, the Police had also to resort to firing, and the processionists dispersed helter-skelter. Fortythree persons were arrested on the spot, and about ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Motiram Vs. Shivram Naguji Ghule and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom188; (1950)52BOMLR250
Chagla, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether in case of an instalment decree providing that on the failure of payment of certain instalments the whole amount due may be recovered, the decree-holder is entitled to exercise his option to recover the whole amount then recoverable, notwithstanding that the first default may have occurred more than three years before the filing of the execution application.2. The facts giving rise to the raising of this question may be briefly stated. An award decree was passed on 14th August 1931. The decree was for Rs. 6,800 and it provided for payment by annual instalments of Rs. 1,000 with interest; the first of such instalments was made payable in March or April 1932 and each subsequent instalments on the succeeding March or April of every year. It was also provided that in default of payment of any two instalments the plaintiff's might recover the whole balance that would remain over after deduction of payments received in one lu...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Narji Bhalji Bhil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom273; (1950)52BOMLR321
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay. The facts of the case, out of which this appeal arises, are briefly these. On 13th August 1949, the police raided the hut of the accused. He was then found in possession of 5 seers of soaked mohura flowers. A boiler and other implements for manufacturing liquor were also found in the hut. The accused was them prosecuted Under Section 65(f), Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. He was tried by the Additional Resident Magistrate, First Class, Dohad, who is not empowered to try cases summarily. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. This plea was accepted and the accused was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals, who set aside his conviction and sentence on the grounds that Under Section 116, Bombay Prohibition Act the case should have been tried summarily by a Magistrate, who was empowered to try cases in a summary manner and that as the accused had be...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Damodar Patil and anr. Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom210; (1950)52BOMLR275
Chagla, C.J.1. These are two applications under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, by the keeper of the Jai Gujarat Printing Press and the printer and publisher of the newspaper Mashal. The keeper made a declaration on 17th June 1949, and he was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000 which he deposited on 24th June 1949. Government issued a notice on 24th November 1949, purporting to be under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of this Act, calling upon him to deposit with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, the sum of Rs. 3,000 on or before 6th December 1949. This notice was in connection with an article that appeared in a paper called the Mashal, dated 24th September 1949. This paper is published both in Gujarati and in Marathi. It would be convenient to deal first with the application of the keeper, because, in our opinion, the technical objection raised by Mr. Jhaveri must prevail.2. Now, when a deposit is made and a security is given, the law permits the Provincial Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Balaji Naik Vs. Municipality of Vengurla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom352; (1950)52BOMLR411
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for refund of excess house tax recovered from him by the municipality of Vengurla in respect of house tax for the year 1944-45. A revised assessment list for the year 1944-45 was prepared on 18th June 1944. A public notice was published on 26th June 1944 and again on 7th August 1944, and an individual notice was served on the plaintiff on 8th July 1944, as the tax with regard to his house was to be increased. The plaintiff filed objections on 8th September 1944, and they were disposed of in December 1944. A demand was then made by the municipality for the increased house tax. That demand was complied with by the plaintiff under protest. Two points were raised by the plaintiff in this litigation. One was that his objections had not been heard, and the other was that the levy of the increased tax was illegal. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had been heard by the Chief Officer and after ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›