Mumbai Court September 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.
Dattatraya Govind Vs. Vaman Ramkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom362; (1950)52BOMLR283; ILR1950Bom358
[1] This appeal raises a short but rather interesting question of Hindu law of adoption, and the facts that are necessary to be stated for the determination of this point are very few. Raoji, Waman and Balaji and Balaji's son, Kashinath constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family, and Kashinath was the sole surviving coparcener. He died on 2nd August 1922. Kashinath left certain watan properties and also non-watan properties. The non-watan properties went to the widow of a collateral, Laxmibai, the collateral being Govind, and the watan properties went to the male heirs of Kashinath who are defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4. Laxmibai adopted the plaintiff as a son to her husband on 14th March 1937, and the question that arises is whether on plaintiff's adoption he divests the estate which was vested in defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4.[2] Mr. Gharpure has urged that Anant v. Shankar clearly lays down that on an adoption the adopted son would divest the estate which has gone to a collateral. Mr. Ghar...
Gulam Ahmed Rogay Vs. Bombay Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: (1951)53BOMLR145
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 218C of the City of Bombay Municipal Act. The question referred to this Court is, whether in arriving at the valuation, for the purposes of Section 154 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, of property to which the Bombay Rent Control Act of 1947 applies, the maximum gross value to be assigned to the property is limited to the maximum standard rent of the property together with the additions thereto permitted by the latter Act.2. It appears from the record that there was a dispute between the landlords of certain premises, which are liable to be assessed for Municipal taxes under the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and the Municipality about the rateable value of those premises. In order to apply the scale of rates it is necessary to determine under Section 154 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act the rateable value of the property in question ; an...
In Re: Shaikh HuseIn Shaik Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom285; (1951)53BOMLR57; ILR1951Bom175
Rajadhyaksha, J. 1. Shaikh Husein Shaik Mahomed was externed from Greater Bombay under an order passed by the Assistant Comr. of Police, Bombay, on 24-7-1950, under Section 27(2-A), City of Bombay Police Act, IV [4] of 1902. He has now challenged that order on the ground that the section under which the order has been passed is void & inoperative in view of Article 15 of the Const. Ind. 2. On 20-7-1950, a notice was served upon the externee in the following terms : 'Name, address & age:--Sk. Husein s/o Sk. Moho-med M. 22 years, occ : Winchman, Res :--Jumma Mosque Building, 3rd floor, Nishanpada Road, Bombay. Under Section 27 (4), Bombay City Police Act, IV [4] of 1902, you are hereby informed that you are, in consequence of the undermentioned allegations made against you, reasonably suspected to be a person whose conduct brings you within the scope of Section 27 (2-A) of the said Act. (cross out the figures & letters not wanted) I have appointed 9-0 A. M. on 24-7-1950 to give you an o...
Baharta Murtiram Vs. L.M. Paranjpe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ308
ORDER1. The applicant is a cultivator of mouza Afrid, in tahsil Janjgir. Upon a complaint of two persons that the applicant was causing his cattle to trespass into the fields of the village, the Gram Panchayat of the village called upon the applicant to explain his conduct. On denial of the facts against him, the Gram Panchayat lodged a complaint against him before the Nyaya Panchayat. The applicant was fined by the Nyaya Panchayat under Section 51, C. P. and Berar Panchayats Act, 1947 (I [l] of 1947).2. Against the order of the Nyaya Panchayat, the petitioner applied in revision under Section 83, Panchayats Act before the Civil Judge, Class I, empowered under Section 83 and Section 101 of the Panchayats Act. The learned Civil Judge declined to interfere with the order of the Nyaya Panchayat, holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The learned Civil Judge took the view that a proceeding under Section 51 does not amount to a criminal case within the meaning of Sec...
In Re: Vishwanath M. Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom289; (1951)53BOMLR55; ILR1951Bom422
Rajadhyaksha, J. 1. This is an appln. in revision against an order passed by the Presidency Mag., 5th Ct. Dadar, Bombay, discharging a notice in respect of a complaint made to him by the present appct. on a charge under Section 500, I. P. C. The appct. in this case was a servant of the opponent one Vasu Shetty. The appct. intended to quit the service of the opponent on Dec. 18, & on 17th went to him to ask for his wages. He was told to come on the following day. But, on the following day, the opponent Shetty filed a complaint against the appot. to the effect that the appct. bad committed a theft of Rs. 1,926 on the previous night. The police of the Dadar Police Station investigated into the case, but eventually discharged the present appct. as there was no evidence that he had committed any such theft. Thereafter the appct. filed a complaint against the opponent Shetty on a charge under Section 500, I. P. C. The learned Mag. took the view that as the facts alleged also constituted an o...
Lady Dinbai Dinshaw Petit and ors. Vs. the Dominion of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom72; (1951)53BOMLR229
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Tendolkar J. by which he dismissed the pltfs'. suit. The pltfs. are the trustees of a certain trust & as such trustees they were in possession of an immovable property admeasuring about 1,10,000 square yards situated at Tardeo Junction, Bombay. It would appear that on 7-3-1942, possession was given either of the whole of this plot or a very large portion of it to the Supplies Department which belonged to the Govt. of India, & this possession was given in contemplation of a lease which was proposed to be entered into between the pltfs & the Govt. of India. On 1-4-1942, a requisition order was passed by which this property was requisitioned, & on 28-10-1942 an order of acquisition was passed acquiring this property, & it is these two orders of requisition & acquisition which are being challenged by the pltfs. in this suit. The pltfs'. contention is that they are still the owners of this property free from requisition or acquisition ord...
Shri Wasudeoraoji Sheorey Vs. Shri A.D. Mani, Managing Editor hitavada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ452
Mudholakar, J.1. I agree. The principle on which the Ct. acted in cases of this kind had been clearly stated in Beg v. Payne (1896) 12 T. L. R. 321, by Lord Russel who said:The appct. must show that something has been published which either is clearly intended, or at least is calculated, to prejudice a trial which is pending.This dictum was quoted with approval by Hewart L. C.J. in Rex v. Editor of the Daily Mail (1928) 44. L. R. 303; and so also were his 'additional observations:.there should be no such application made unless the thing done is of such a nature as to require the arbitrary & summary interference of the Ct. in order to enable justice to be duly & properly administered without any interruption or interference.2. In In re 'Finance Union' Yorkshire Provident Assurance Go. v. 'Review' Publishers (1895) 11 T. L. R. 167, Wright J. was of the view that the summary jurisdiction ought only to be exercised when it is probable that the publication-will substantially interfere with...
State of Bombay Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co. (No. 1) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom45; (1951)53BOMLR112; ILR1951Bom518
Rajadhyaksha, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against an order of acquittal passed by the Chief Presidency Mag. acquitting the five accused who were charged with having committed offences under Sections 6 & 7, Indian Merchandise Marks Act, IV [4] of 1889 & under Sections 482, 486 & 497, I. P. C.2. The prosecution case in brief was this There were originally five accused before the trial Ct. Accused 1 was a company going by the name of Geoffrey Manners & Co. having its office at Ballard Estate, Fort, Bombay. The other four accused were the directors of that company. Dr. Dhume, who is the Deputy Director of Industries, Bombay, was put on an inquiry on information received from the Rangoon Customs Authorities with respect to a product which was known as Anne French Cleansing Milk. Dr. Dhume purchased a bottle of this product from one Abbasbhai Akbarally. The bottle bore a green label with the following inscriptions:'ANNE FRENCH Cleansing Milk Apply with cotton wool & remov...
Gajanan Govind Pathak Vs. Pandurang Keshav Puntambekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom290; (1951)53BOMLR100; ILR1951Bom240
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings & the only question which it raises is, whether the judgment-debtor is entitled to be relieved against forfeiture. The decree in question is a compromise decree & it was passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Poona, in civil Suit No. 551 of 1946 on 22-8-1947. This suit had been filed by the landlord against his tenant claiming to recover possession of the premises let to the tenant on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of rent. According to the plaint the tenant was liable to pay Rs. 84 as past rent before the date of the suit. By the compromise decree the deft. was ordered to pay the saidamount of Rs. 84, costs of the suit & the rent which had accrued due since the institution of the suit up to the end of Aug. 1947. It was admitted by the pltf. that this amounted in all to Rs. 188, out of which Rs. 100 had already been paid by the deft. In effect, therefore, the deft. was ordered to pay the bala...
The Broach Borough Municipality Vs. Bhadriklal Ambalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom358; (1951)53BOMLR282; ILR1951Bom492
Bhagwati, J. 1. [His Lordship after stating facts as above proceeded :]2. The first question which was agitated before us was whether the resolution dated 16-12-1942, was validly passed, & if not, what was the effect of the same. Under section 33 (a), Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, no Chief Officer can be removed from office, reduced or suspended unless by the votes of at least two-thirds of the whole number of councillors. This Municipality had 30 councillors & 20 councillors voted in favour of the resolution on that day, with the result that if the resolution was otherwise validly passed there was at least two-thirds of the whole number of councillors present at the meeting & the requirements of Section 33 (2) of the Act were complied with. Under section 58 (f) of the Act, the Municipality was empowered to make rules not inconsistent with the Act determining, subject to the limitations imposed by Sections 33, 34 (5) & 34A, the mode & conditions of appointing, punishing or dismi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »