Mumbai Court August 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.
Dwarkadas Shrinivas Vs. the Sholapur Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom86; (1951)53BOMLR218; ILR1951Bom473
Chagla C.J.1. The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co., Ltd., was incorporated with an authorised capital of RS. 48,00,000 divided into 1590 fully paid up ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each and 20 fully paid up ordinary shares of Rs, 500 each & 32,000 partly paid up redeemable cumulative first preference shares of Rs. 100 each. Therefore, the present paid up capital of the company is Rs. 32,00,000, Rs. 16,00,000 being fully paid up ordinary shares & Rs. 16,00,000 being partly paid up preference shares, Rs. 50 being unpaid on each of the 32,000 cumulative preference shares. On 27-7-1949, the directors of the mills gave a notice to the workers that the mills would be closed, & pursuant to this notice the mills were in fact closed on 27-8 1949. On 5-10-1949, Govt. appointed a Controller under the Essential Supplies Emergency Powers Act, 1946, & on 9 11-1949, the Controller asked the directors of the company to make a call of RS. 50 per share on the preference share holders, the amount remaining...
Mirvahedali Kadumiya and ors. Vs. Rashidbeg Kadumiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom22; (1950)52BOMLR884; ILR1951Bom169
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises for our determination in this second appeal is the right of a Muslim wife to dower. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed for the administration of the estate of one Inayat who died in 1980 leaving a widow Papabi and four daughters. Inayat had a brother living at the time of his death by the name of Kadumiya, and the parties arrayed on the two sides of the record are Inayat's children and the children of Kadumiya who also claim an interest in the estate of their uncle, and the question that we have to decide is whether the children of Inayat as the heirs of their mother Papabi who died in 1935 are entitled to retain certain properties till the dower that was due to their mother has been paid. It has been found by both the Courts that on the death of Inayat, Papabi went into possession of certain properties belonging to her husband. In this appeal we are only concerned with the properties mentioned in Schedules II and v which the hei...
Sakarchand Satidas and ors. Vs. Narayan Savla Vani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom10; (1950)52BOMLR888; ILR1951Bom217
ORDERChagla C.J. 1. In the suit from which this appeal arises, an alienation made by defendant 6, who is the father of plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 and the husband of plaintiff 4, was challenged. The alienation was a mortgage dated 6-6-1932, and the alienation was in favour of defendants 1 to 5. The trial Court upheld the challenge and declared that the mortgage was not binding upon the plaintiffs' share which he assessed at four-fifths.2. In this appeal Mr. Merchant on behalf of the alienees has first contended that there is no evidence which would justify a finding that the property alienated was joint family property. The plaintiffs came to Court on the allegation in their plaint that the property was joint family property and that allegation was met by defendants 1 to 5 by the assertion that the property was alienated by defendant 6 for legal necessity. Defendants 1 to 5 in their written statement did not controvert the allegation of the plaintiffs that the property was joint family prope...
Prithvisingh Devising Vs. Hasan Alli Vazirkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom6; (1950)52BOMLR862; ILR1951Bom101
Bhagwati, J. 1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the learned Assistant Judge, Thana, who allowed the appeal from a decision of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thana, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.2. This second appeal raises a short point as to the effect of registration of a partnership after the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs were partners carrying on business as such and in the course of the partnership had dealings with the defendants. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession from the defendants of suit property and also for recovery of past rents and future mesne profits. The partnership was not registered on or before 10-10-1944, when the plaint was presented at the Court at Andheri. It was subsequently registered on 16-3-1945, and the plea which was taken on behalf of the plaintiffs was that this subsequent registration of the partnership was enough to enable the plaintiffs to maintain the suit, notwithstanding the provisions o...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. the Maharashtra Sugar Mill ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom28; (1951)53BOMLR82; ILR1951Bom226
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a reference made to us under Section 57, Stamp Act, by the Chief Con-trolling Revenue Authority, and the facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated. The Maharashtra Sugar Mills borrowed a certain sum of money from the Central Bank of India, Ltd., on the security of various goods and movables belonging to the company, and a document was executed reducing to writing the terms of the transaction between the parties. That document was executed on 22-8-1945. The company sent this document to the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar of Companies took the view that the document was inadequately stamped and therefore forwarded it to the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps. The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps called upon the Sugar Company to pay the proper duty along with penalty. The Sugar Company resisted the demanded filed a suit, being Suit No. 1108 of 1945, in this Court for a rectification of the document. The contention of a Sugar Company was tha...
Fram Nusservanji Balsara Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom210; (1950)52BOMLR799; ILR1951Bom17
Chagla, G.J.1. This is a petition by one Pram Nusserwanji Balsara who is a citizen of India, He has in his possession one bottle of whisky, one bottle of brandy (both partly used), one bottle of wine, two bottles of beer, one bottle of medicated wine, one bottle of eau-de-cologne, one bottle of lavender water, and some bottles of medicinal preparations. He alleges that be has been accustomed to drink and consume foreign liquor in a moderate manner for several years past and is also accustomed to the use of eau-de-cologne and lavender water. He challenges the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, as being ultra vires of the State Legislature and being also void as contravening several of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen by the Indian Constitution. Originally he sought by his petition a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay, which is respondent 1, and the Prohibition Commissioner, who is respondent 2, ordering these respondents to forbear from enforcing against him the pro...
Tatya Savla and ors. Vs. Yeshwant Kondiba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom283; (1950)52BOMLR909; ILR1951Bom293
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree of the learned Assistant Judge of Ahmednagar who dismissed the appeal which was filed by the original defts. 1, 5 and 6 against the decision of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Karjat, decreeing the pltfs.' suit.2. The pltfs. filed the suit against deft. 1 who was described as their tenant in respect of the suit lands, defts. 2, 3 and 4, the sons of deft. No. 1 and defts. Nos. 5 and 6 who claimed to be sharers of the pltfs. under certain entries which were made in the Record of Rights. There had been prior litigation between the pltfs. and deft. No. 1, a suit, being Suit No. 418 of 1942, having been filed by the pltfs. against him, to evict him from the suit lands. In that suit deft. 1 had disclaimed the pltfs.' title and had set up a title in the suit lands in defts. Nos. 5 and 6. Because of this disclaimer of the pltfs.' title the pltfs.' contended in this suit which was filed by. them on 9-11-1944, that they were ent...
Gordhandas Pursottam Sonawala Vs. Natvarlal Chandulal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Bom349; (1952)54BOMLR367
ORDER(1) This is an application for obtaining a declaration that there exists no valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, and the persons who are appointed as arbitrators have no authority, and that the alleged transactions in respect of which the disputes had arisen between the parties were outside the scope of Article 96 of the articles of association and bye-law 38-A of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. In the alternative the petitioner has prayed for revoking the authority of the arbitrators. (2) The petition is filed under Sections 33 and 5 of the Indian Arbitration Act X of 1940. The material allegations and submissions made by the petitioner in his petition are these. (3) The petitioner and the respondents are members of the East India Cotton Association, Limited, and do business in cotton. One Ramanlal Nagindas was in the employ of the petitioner for about four years prior to 1948. Towards the end of April 1948 the petitioner...
Lingbhat Tippanbhat Joshi and ors. Vs. Parappa Mallappa Ganiger and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom1; (1950)52BOMLR846
Bhagwati, J. 1. An interesting question of Hindu law arises in these two appeals, whether the sons are liable by reason of their pious obligation to pay the father's debt incurred as a surety for payment o money, out of their interest in the joint family properties.2. Defendant 4 is the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2. He had stood surety for the repayment of the debt due by defendant 3, the debtor, to defendant 2, the creditor. He had executed a surety bond for repayment of the debt due by defendant 3 to defendant 2. Defendant 3 failed and neglected to pay the debt due by him to defendant 2 and defendant 2 filed a suit, being suit No. 223 of 1938 against defendant 3, the principal debtor, and defendant 4, the surety. A decree was obtained by defendant 2 in that suit and he applied for execution of the decree against defendant 4 by darkhast No. 383 of1941. In execution of that decree, the suit lands being the joint family properties belonging to the joint Hindu family constituted by plain...
Kisansing Mohansing Balwar and ors. Vs. Vishnu Balkrishna Jogalekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom4; (1950)52BOMLR867; ILR1951Bom148
Baydekar, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a suit, which had been filed by the sons of a mortgagor for a declaration that the mortgage was invalid, inasmuch as the mortgagor had no title to the property. It appears from the evidence that the property was the self-acquired property of the mortgagor's father. There was a dispute between the parties, namely, the sons of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, as to whether the property was the ancestral property of the mortgagor's father, or whether it was the self-acquired property of the mortgagor's father; but the learned first appellate Judge, who was the final Court of fact, has found that the property was the self-acquired property of the mortgagor's father. There was a concession made besides on behalf of the mortgagor's sons that the property was the self-acquired property of the mortgagor and that there had been a partition made by the father of this property during his lifetime, by which he gave to the mortgagor the share whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »