Mumbai Court December 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.
In Re: Pushkar Narayan Brahmwar;
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom19; (1952)54BOMLR719
ORDER[1] This is a notice of motion taken out by one Harischandra Sharma, a proving creditor, in the insolvency of one Pushkar Narayan Brahm-war. The notice of motion is taken out for an order to summon before the Court under Section 36 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 3 of 1909, the following four persons -- Shri Brijnarayan Brahmwar, Shri Govind Ram Arora, Shri S. S. Kothari and Shri Har Narayan Arora, and to call upon them to produce the documents in their respective custody or power relating to the insolvent, his dealings or property and to call upon Brijnarayan Brahmwar to produce all the relevant books and documents pertaining to the transactions stated to have taken place between the General Business Corporation and the sister concerns with which the General Business Corporation is stated to have had dealings, and the business carried on by the insolvent, including the books of account and other papers at the head office at Ajmer. All the four persons whose names have bee...
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. Central Bank of India, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1951
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR403
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) alleged to have been violated by the Central Bank of India, Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and having its registered office at Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank').2. It appears that the petitioner held five shares in the share capital of the bank which sold those shares to a third party in purported exercise of its right of lien for recovery of a debt due to it from the petitioner, and the transfer was registered in the books of the bank in the year 1937. The petitioner thereupon instituted a series of proceedings in the High Court at Bombay on its original and appellate jurisdiction challenging the validity of the said sale and transfer. The latest of these proceedings was a suit filed against the bank in 1951 wherein the plaint was rejected on March 2, 1951, ...
Mahadoba Devasthan Vs. Mahadba Romaji Bidkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom38; (1952)54BOMLR645; ILR1953Bom1071
Bhagwati, J. [1] This is a first appeal from the decision of the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Poona who dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff is the Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, Mouje Theur, Kasbe Poona, by its vahivatdar Keshav Waman Waghule, and the suit was filed by the plaintiff thus described against the original defendant 3 who was the then vahivatdar and the father of Keshav Waman Waghule and defendants 1 and 2 who were alienees of certain properties alleged to belong to the plaintiff for two declarations, one that the sale-deeds of the suit lands were void and the lands were of the ownership of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, and two, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession oi S. Nos. 240A, 242, 243 and 344 from the Government and recover possession of s. nO. 245 from the defendants and costs of the suit. The defences which were taken up were that Keshav Waman Waghule was not the vahivatdar, defendant 3 being the vahivatdar of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, that ...
State Vs. Rangrao Bala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom327; (1952)54BOMLR325; ILR1952Bom979
Vyas, J. (1) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Batara acquitting the three original accused persons of an offence under s. 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (Bom XXV of 1949.)(2) Shortly stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: Accused Rangrao and Bhagwan are residents of the village Rahimatpur in Satara District, and accused Yeshwant is a resident of Tukaichiwadi, also a village in the same District, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koregaon, received information that these three accused persons were consuming liquor. He took panchas with himself and proceeded to Rahimatpur on November 2, 1950, for making a search of the house of the accused, when he went up to the house of the accused Rangrao, he was met at the door-way by the accused's wife. He asked her to call accused Nos. 1 and 2. She immediately went in and gave information to the accused that the police had come. Without waiting for her to r...
Lakhu Motiram and ors. Vs. Radhabai Mulchand Ramnarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom438; (1952)54BOMLR483; ILR1953Bom1056
Chainani, J.[1] The facts of the suit, from which this appeal arises, are briefly these. One Lalji Gokul executed a mortgage deed on 9-9-1914, mortgaging S.No. 49 Pot No. 3 and Falni No. 1 and S.No. 61, Pot. No. 2 and Falni Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the village of Khadepi in Mahad taluka and some other lands to Bam Narayan, the father of the defendant's husband. At that time pot numbers were given to paddy lands and falni numbers to varkas lands growing grass. On 18-5-1925, Lalji Gokul sold some of the mortgaged properties aswell as S.No. 49, pot Nos. 1 and 2 and S.No. 61 Pot No. 1, which were not covered by the mortgage in favour of Ram Narayan, to Lakhu Motiram, plaintiff 1, and Ranchhod Mathur, whoso heirs are plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4. In 1925 Ram Narayan filed a suit against Lalji Gokul in order to recover the amount duo to him. Plaintiff 1 and Ranchhod Mathur were made parties to the suit as subsequent purchasers of some of the mortgaged properties.In January 1927 a decree was passed in tha...
Annagouda Nathgouda Patil Vs. Court of Wards
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1951
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR395
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a division bench of the Bombay High Court dated March 14, 1943, which affirmed, on appeal, the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Satara, passed in Civil Suit No. 890 of 1938. The appellants before us filed the suit, as plaintiffs, in the original Court for establishment of their title to the property in dispute, which is known as Chikurde estate, on the allegation that they were, under the Hindu law, the nearest heirs of one Bhimabai, who was admittedly the last holder of the estate. The suit was brought initially against one defendant, namely, the Court of Wards, Satara, and admittedly the Court of Wards took possession of the property of Bhimabai, while she was alive, and is continuing in possession of the same even now after her death. Later on, defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who put forward rival claims of succession to the estate, were allowed to intervene in the suit and were added as parties defen...
The Madras Electric Tramways Ltd. Vs. M.K. Ranganathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom449; (1952)54BOMLR552; ILR1952Bom974; (1952)ILLJ176Bom
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from an order made by Shah J. on an application for a writ of certiorari against the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the application came to be made under the following circumstances. There was a dispute between the Madras Electric Tramways Co., Ltd., who is the appellant before us and the petitioner who is an employee and other employees as to an order of dismissal passed by the Madras Electric Tramways Co. on 10-4-1950, which was confirmed by it on 22-5-1950. The contention of the petitioner and other employees was that they had been wrongly dismissed, the contention of the company being that their action was proper. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of that dispute. On 20-9-1950, the Madras Government by a notification issued under Section 10(1)(e) Industrial Disputes Act referred this dispute to the Labour Tribunal and the Labour Tribunal gave its decision on 9-12-1950, by which it ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. There was an appe...
Shankar Nanasaheb Karpe Vs. Returning Officer, Kolaba District and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom277; (1952)54BOMLR137; ILR1952Bom785
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is a petition for a writ under Article 223 of the Constitution against the Re. turning Officer of the Kolaba District, alleging that the Officer has wrongfully rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner for the ensuing election to the State Assembly, and for an order upon him directing him to include the petitioner's name in the list of valid nominations. The Advocate General who appears for the Returning Officer has taken a preliminary objection and the objection is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. [2] In order to understand and appreciate the objection raised it is necessary, to look at the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with elections to all the Legislatures in the Union of India. Under Section 17 notifications for elections to State Legislative Assemblies had to be issued by the Governor of the State, Under Section 20 Returning Officer for each constituency had to be appointed by the Election Commission i...
Pitrus Lahra Vs. R.V. Dalal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1025
ORDER1. The First Class Magistrate, Jashpur, convicted and sentenced Pitrus and Boka each to undergo 4 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of the Foodgrains Control Order, 1945. 68 bags of grain weighing 170 maunds were also ordered to be forfeited. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, arquitted the accused and set aside the order of forfeiture on the 18.10.1949. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, appealed against the acquittal but their appeal was dismissed on 26.4.1950.2. After the decisions of the Additional Sessions Judge and this Court. Pitrus made several attempts but without success to secure the return of the grain. About a month after the disposal of the State Government's appeal by this Court, it was removed from Tapkara to Jashpurnagar and sold on 24.5.1950 for Rs. 1,100 by the Tahsildar, without the knowledge of Pitrus or Boka, although the market rate was then Rs. 15 per maund. In...
Narsingdas Takhatmal Vs. Radhakisan Rambakas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR492
FACTS One Narsingdas (plaintiff) filed the present suit against Radhakisan, Shrikisan, Balmukund and Ramkisan (defendants l to 4) impleading therein his grandsons Bhikchand, Shivdas and Dwarkadas (defendants 5 to 7) being the sons of his daughter Indirabai, for a declaration that the sale-deeds of 1907, 1909, 1919 and 1923 regarding the suit properties were mortgages and that defendants l to 4 had taken them as mortgagees and for accounts of expenditure and income, for redemption and possession of the suit properties and costs.The plaintiff was a merchant dealing in silk yarn and did considerable business in the commodity. He used to stock silk yarn of the value of about Rs. 4 lacs. There was a fire in the year 1900 and the godown of the plaintiff was burnt down. The goods had been insured against fire, but the insurance company entertained a suspicion about the genuineness of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff was prosecuted for cheating and arson. He was convicted by the Sessions J...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›