Mumbai Court March 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.
Raoji Bapuchand Pendharkar Vs. K.L. Bavachekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom399; (1950)52BOMLR606
Chagla, C.J.1. The few facts which give rise to this Letters Patent appeal may be briefly stated. One Hirachand Gandhi was adjudicated insolvent on 25th June 1927. He had sold a property on 26th May 1923, to one Paraswar and Paraswar in his turn sold the property to the appellant on 27th July 1923. The alienation by the insolvent in favour of the appellant was set aside by the Insolvency Court on 17th June 1931. An appeal was preferred to the District Court and the appeal was dismissed on 11th April 1932. There was a second appeal to the High Court which was also dismissed on 22nd February 1935. The receiver obtained possession of the property on 29th October 1933, and on 23rd March 1936, he made an application for mesne profits. The Insolvency Court awarded to him mesne profits from the date when the appellant was in possession, viz., 27th July 1923, till the receiver went into possession, and that amount came to Rs. 3,155. From this order an appeal was preferred to the District Court...
The Fortune Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Vidyagauri J. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1950
Reported in: [1951]21CompCas122(Bom)
Vyas, J.1. This appeal arises out of Insolvency Application No. 45 of 1949 of the District Court of East Khandesh in which the District Judge of East Khandesh has ordered under section 162 of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913) the winding up of the Fortune Commercial Bank Ltd., Jalgaon, holding it proved on the evidence before him that the deceased managing director of the appellant company, on Mr. K. G. Chaudhari, had grossly mismanaged the affairs of the company to secure benefit to himself and his friends, that loans with out security to the extent of Rs. 90,000 had been advanced to the directors of the company, that suspicious entries to cover up the fraud had been made in the accounts of the company by the deceased managing director, that since March 1, 1949, the company was doing no business, that the substratum of the company had gone, that therefore the object of this banking company could not be carried out and that therefore it was just and equitable to wind up the compan...
The Modern Mills Ltd. Vs. V.R. Mangalvedhekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom342; (1950)52BOMLR389; ILR1951Bom1; (1953)IILLJ469Bom
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from an order of Coyajee J., by which he dismissed the petition presented by the Modern Mills. Ltd., for a writ of certiorari against the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It would appear that an award was made by the Industrial Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, on 20th March 1948, in respect of certain disputes between the textile mills and their employees, and condition 6 of this award provided :'Persons who are eligible for bonus but who are not in service of the Mill on the date of payment shall be paid in one lump sum on 31st May 1948, provided claims in writing are submitted to the Manager of the Mill concerned before 21st May 1948, after which no application for bonus shall be entertained.'One Jagardeo Shantaram, an employee of the Modern Mills, who had left the services on 12th March 1948, made an application for the bonus which had been declared by a letter dated 18th May 1948, and which letter was ...
The Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madholal Sindhu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom378; (1950)52BOMLR386
Chagla C. J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Bhagwati J., by which he gave the plaintiffs leave to withdraw the suit filed by them with liberty to file a fresh suit. The suit which the plaintiffs had filed was a representative suit and it was filed on 4th October 1949. On 5th October the plaintiffs made an ex parte application for Receiver and an order was made on that application by Tendolkar J. On 18th October 1949, the plaintiffs' solicitors Wrote to the defendants' solicitors that their clients had been advised to withdraw the suit and they did not propose to proceed with the same and they personally undertook to pay the costs of the notice of motion which was still pending which would be allowed to be dismissed. They further gave intimation to the defendants that they would apply on the following day for the order of withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Accordingly an application was made by the plaintiffs' attorneys for withdrawal of the suit with l...
Mahomed Akbar Abdulla Fazalbhoy Vs. Associated Banking Corporation Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom386; (1950)52BOMLR559; [1950]20CompCas325(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Tendolkar by which he decreed the claim of the plaintiff company, which is in liquidation, in respect of certain calls made by the directors of the company against the defendant who was a shareholder. A few facts must be stated in order to appreciate the various points that have been urged at the bar. The defendant, who is the appellant before us, was the holder of 876 ordinary shares of the company. On 24th July, 1945, the directors of the plaintiff company made a call of Rs. 25 on the shares, and the calls were payable by two instalments. The first was payable on 5th September, 1945, and the second was payable on 2nd December, 1945. On 6th August, 1945, the company gave notice to the defendant to pay the first instalment, and on 6th November, 1945, the company gave notice to pay the second instalment. The defendant failed to pay both the instalments in respect of 375 shares. A provisional liquidator of the company was ap...
Gaganmal Ramchand Vs. the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom345; (1950)52BOMLR377; ILR1951Bom364
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from an order of Tendolkar J., granting leave to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Manecksha that the order does not constitute a judgment within the meaning of clause (15), Letters Patent and no appeal lies.[2] Now, the same question came up before a Bench of this Court constituting of Sir Harilal Kania, Ag. C. J., as he then was, and myself, in Sheshgiridas Shanbhag v. Sunderrao 48 Bom. L. R. 252 :A. I. R 1946 Bom. 361, and we held that allowing an amendment of the plaint was not a judgment within clause (15), Letters Patent. Mr. Seervai has tried to distinguish this judgment. According to him we were dealing there with a case where the contention was that the order made by my brother Coyajee J., granting leave to amend the plaint allowed matters to be pleaded which went beyond the scope of the suit and we held that assuming the learned Judge was wrong in allowing the amendment, the most that could be said wa...
Shiavax C. Cambata and anr. Vs. Sunderdas Ebji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom343; (1950)52BOMLR381
Chagla, C.J.[1]. This is an appeal from a judgment of Bhagwati J., holding that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit from which this appeal arises and transferring that suit to the Small Causes Court under S. 50 of Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947. Section 28 of that Act confers jurisdiction upon the Small Causes Court to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of Part II apply and that section ousts the jurisdiction of every other Court with regard to those matters ; and S. 50 provides for transfer of suits of the description mentioned in S. 28 to the Small Causes Court or other Courts which have jurisdiction to try those suits.[2] So the question that we have to determine is whether the suit which in the opinion of Bhagwati J., was not triable by the High Court but by the Small Causes Court was a suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of...
Mohanlal Bechardas Vs. the Bombay Life Assurance Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom355; (1950)52BOMLR375
Chagla C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of Bhagwati J. dismissing the plaintiff's suit and the dismissal came about under the following circumstances. The plaintiff had filed the suit for a declaration that the increase in the capital of defendant 1 company, which was intended to be brought about by a resolution to be passed at the meeting of the company, was not in the interest and for the benefit of the company, and allegations were made in the plaint that the directors were acting mala fide in bringing about such an increase in capital. An application was made before Blagden J. for an injunction restraining the defendants from passing such a resolution pending the hearing of the suit. Blagden J. did not grant the injunction, but ordered that while the company might proceed with the consideration of the resolution if such a resolution was passed, the company should not act on that resolution pending further orders. Therefore, a meeting was held and the resolution w...
Anant Dharma Vs. Mangaldas Rupchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom178; (1950)52BOMLR678; ILR1950Bom702
ORDERShah, J.1. Application No. 1774 of 1945 was filed by the petitioner and his brother Pandurang Dharma Patil as members of an undivided Hindu family before the Chairman of the Debt Adjustment Board, Shahpur and Murbad for adjustment of their debts under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1939, Statutory issues under Section 35 (1) of the Act were raised by the Chairman and he held on 21-4-1947, that the applicants were not debtors within the meaning of Section 2 (6), Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act (Bom XXVIII [28] of 1939). The Chairman on that finding dismissed the application under Section 35, Clause (2) of the Act. An appeal was preferred against that decision by the petitioner to the District Court at Thana, and the learned District Judge has by his order dated 25-6-1949, confirmed the order of the dismissal of the application originally passed by the Chairman of the Board. The petitioner comes to this Court in revision.2. Now, during the pen...
Brijlal Bansilal Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom193; 1950CriLJ1362
ORDERMudholkar, J.1. The applicant, who is the proprietor of Shri Gajanan Talkies at Buldana, has been convicted under Section 25 of the Rules framed under the Entertainments Duty Act, 1936, for the breach of Rule 18 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 95.2. Rule 18 requires that where complimentary tickets for an entertainment are issued in excess of 6 per cent, of the accommodation for any class, the proprietor of the entertainment shall make a return to the Deputy Commissioner in respect of such tickets giving reasons for issuing tickets in excess of per cent. It is common ground that the applicant issued complimentary tickets for 6 seats, in a class where the accommodation is for eighty persons, on and December 1948 for the first show. This was in exces3 of 6 per cent., yet the applicant made no report to the Deputy Commissioner as required by Rule 18.3. According to the applicant, there was no need to make the report as there were two shows on 2nd December 1948, and the complimenta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›