Mumbai Court November 1951 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.
Dulerai and Co. Vs. Pokerdas Mengraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom335; (1952)54BOMLR313
ORDER(1) The plaintiffs filed a suit against the firm of Dulerai & Co. Appearance for the firm was filed under protest and the protest was directed to this that one of the partners of the defendant firm was the Maharaja of prchha who could not be sued in the City Civil Court. The plaintiffs took out a summons for striking out the protest. The learned Principal Judge first held following 'GAEKWAR BARODA STATE RAILWAY v. HABIB ULLAH', : AIR1934All740 , that a suit against a firm in, which a Maharaja is a partner is not a suit against the Maharaja under Section 86 of the Civil P. C. Then the attention of the learned Principal Judge was drawn to the decision of the Privy Council in 'GAEKWAR BARODA STATE RAILWAY v. HAFIZ HABIB-UL-HAQ', 65 Ind App 182. Thereupon the learned Principal Judge took the view that if the suit was against a firm in the name of the firm and not against the partners in their individual names, Section 86 would not apply.(2) Now, Section 86 of the Civil P. C. has been ...
Rama Shidappa Thorali and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom299; (1952)54BOMLR316; ILR1952Bom662
Chagla, C.J.(3) Nine accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, with a jury, for having committed an offence under Section 395 and in the alternative under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty by 3 to 2 against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 under Section 411 and they brought in a verdict of not guilty against the other accused. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and with regard to the four accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 convicted and sentenced them. An appeal was preferred by these four accused and the appeal came for hearing before Mr. Justice Bavdekar and Mr. Justice Chainani. The only evidence against these four accused was a certain statement made by them to the police officer, and the question that arose before the Court of appeal was whether this statement was admissible Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. These two learned Judges have referred the matter to a Full bench as there were confli...
Adamji Umar Dalal Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1951
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR400
Mahajan, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are limited to the question of sentence only. In case No. 1783/P of 1950, which has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1951, the appellant Adamji Umar Dalai was tried along with five other persons on the following charges :Firstly, that you at Bombay on or about the 29th day of December 1949 in contravention of Government Notification No. 342/IV B, dated 27-1-46 issued under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, attempted to export by rail out of the State of Bombay to Jalna, a place beyond the limits of Bombay State, 50 barrels of kerosene oil, without having any permit in that behalf, by misdescribing or causing the misdescription of the said barrels of oil as high speed diesel oil, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act.Secondly, that you at Bombay, on or about the 29th day of December 1949 attempted to export by rail 50 barrels of kerosen...
State Government Vs. Jiwa Bhai Nathabhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1030
1. The respondent Jiwabhai, owner of a rice mill at Uttai, Durg district, and Ratilal, Manager, thereof, were each convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 by the Judge-Magistrate, Durg, under Section 92, Factories Act, 1948, for contravention of Section 56. They were, however, acquitted in respect of contraventions of Sections 62 and 66(1)(b) 'ibid'; and the State Government has now filed an appeal against the acquittals.2. When the mill in question was inspected on 10.1.1951 by Shri D.T. Vaidya (D.W. I), Inspector of Factories, it was found that-(i) the register of workers was not properly maintained;(ii) three women were found working after 7 p.m.; and(iii) the spreadover was 13J hours instead of 10 hours.We are not here concerned with (iii) in respect of which the respondents have been convicted.3. In the manager's explanation it was admitted vide Ex, P-2 that the register of workers was not properly maintained and we do not understand what the learned Judge-Magistrate meant...
State Vs. Abdul Gafur Miya Mahamad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom333; (1952)54BOMLR322; ILR1953Bom969
Vyas, J.(1) His Lordship, after narrating the facts, proceeded.) The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State conceded at the outset that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dealt with the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case fairly and fully and that this was a case of an unanimous verdict of the jury who had considered all the evidence and circumstances of the case very carefully. Nevertheless, he said that there was one glaring illegality committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his charge to the jury, and he addressed his arguments to us on that point. Now, that point is this: During the committal proceedings in this case certain three witnesses Ramji, Magan and Pancham were examined for the prosecution before the committing Magistrate. When the case went before the Sessions Court for trial, the learned Public Prosecutor, who was in charge of the case, made an application to the Court stating that he did not wish to examine as prosecut...
Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Yamunabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom382; (1952)54BOMLR421; ILR1952Bom1048; (1952)ILLJ1Bom
Dixit, J.(1) This appeal arises from an application for compensation made by the respondent under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the quSestion which it seeks to raise is whether the respondent's husband received personal injury by accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment. The facts of the ease in which the question arises are simple.(2) One Vinayak Yenku, a carpenter, was employed in a workshop situate at Alexandra Dock, Bombay, and belonging to the appellant. In the workshop he was given a table and a cupboard. There were other workmen besides Vinayak, and their tables were in line with one another. On May 13, 1950, which is the date of the accident. Vinayak went to the workshop and sat at the table assigned to him to do the work which was that of preparing a frame for a trolley. While there, a bomb exploded, as a result of which Vinayak received injuries. Ho was subsequently removed to the St. George's Hospital, where he died on the night of the same d...
Edulji Framroj Dinshaw Vs. Sir Gawasji Jehangir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1951
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR763
Shah J.1. One Framroz Edulji Dinshaw died on January 3, 1936, leaving him surviving a son Edulji and two daughters Bachoobai and Manekbai. Prior to his death, Dinshaw had made and executed a will on July 23, 1934. After the death of Dinshaw, Manekbai, who was a spinster, died on May 30, 1939. Manekbai died intestate, and Edulji and Bachoobai were her nearest relations on whom the property left by her devolved according to the rules of inheritance governing ParSections2. Under Clause 11 of his will Dinshaw, who will hereafter be referred to as the testator, gave various directions to his trustees with regard to the corpus and income of his property, and directed that the property be held on trust. For the purpose of this Originating Summons we are primarily concerned with the directions contained in Sub-clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Clause 11. Sub-clause (g) is in the following terms:After the death of such child my trustees shall hold such share and the future income thereof in trust for...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›