Mumbai Court February 1951 Judgments
Dhanraj Mills Ltd. Vs. B.K. Kocher and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom132; (1951)53BOMLR393; ILR1952Bom335
Chagla, C.J.1. The petition from which this appeal arises is an entirely hopeless one & Mr. Pritt with all his ingenuity has tried to make it as presentable as possible. The petitioners are the Dhanraj Mills & they used in their mills imported foreign cotton of two varieties, Kampala & Tan-ganyika. A control has been imposed by the Govt. of India on the sale of cotton & mills can only receive cotton as permitted by the various Control Orders issued from time to time by the Govt. of India. The grievance made by the petitioner in his petition is that he was allocated by resp. I who is the Deputy Chief Controller, certain bales of cotton of the Kampala & Tanganyika varieties for the yeara 1948-1949. This allocation was made on the hasis of the consumption of the mills of this cotton for a period of three years ending with December 1942. The petitioner applied for allocation of these two varieties of cotton to resp. l also for the years 1949-1950 &, without going into figures, broadly the ...
Tag this Judgment!Urmilabai Vs. Jehangir B. Pastakia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom75; (1952)54BOMLR763
(1) These are three mortgage suits in respect of mortgages of properties which are outside Greater Bombay, and the claims made in each one of these suits are within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. As it was contended on behalf of defendant No. 1 that these suits were cognizable only by the City Civil Court and, therefore, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of these suits, I directed that all the suits should be placed on board for the determination of the issue: 'Whether having regard to the provisions of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.'(2) So far as the decisions of this Court go, it is well-established that under Clause XII of the Letters Patent this Court had, prior to the passing of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, jurisdiction to entertain suits on a mortgage of an immoveable property provided the relief asked for was only an order for sate and not for foreclosure....
Tag this Judgment!Govindram Salamatrai and anr. Vs. Dharampal Amarnath and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom390; (1951)53BOMLR386
Chagla C.J. 1. The plff's. filed the suit against the defts. alleging that they were licensees of certain property in the possession of the plffs., that the license had been properly & legally terminated & that they were entitled to an order of eviction against the defts. The contention of the defts, was that they were not licensees but tenants & therefore were protected under the Rent Restriction Act. The main & substantial issue which Shah J. had to determine was whether the defts. were licensees as alleged by the plffs. or tenants as alleged by them. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the defts. were licensees & not tenants & thereupon passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the plffs. It is from this decree that this appeal is preferred. 2. Before I deal with the merits of the case, there is a preliminary question that has got to be considered & decided & that is whether this Court had jurisdiction to try this suit. It is contended on behalf of the defts. that in view...
Tag this Judgment!Fatechand Tarachand and anr. Vs. Parashram Maghanmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom101; (1952)54BOMLR757
(1) This is a chamber summons taken out by the Official Assignee of Bombay praying that a warrant of sale issued on January 10, 1951, be quashed and set aside and that the Sheriff of Bombay be directed to hand over to the Official Assignee the move-able property belonging to the defendant, viz. the assets, stock-in-trade, cash and other articles and things of Messrs. Northern India Radio Distributors of which the defendant was the sole proprietor and which had been attached by the Sheriff under a warrant of attachment under Order XXI, Rule 43, on October 16, 1950, in execution of a decree obtained by the plaintiffs.(2) Fatechand Tarachand and Karamchand Tejumal, hereinafter called the plaintiffs, filed suit No. 1665 of 1949 against Parasram Maghanmal, hereinafter called the defendant, for a decree that the partnership between the plaintiffs and the defendant carried on in shop No. 75, of Old Oriental Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, be dissolved and accounts may be taken of the assets an...
Tag this Judgment!State Govt. Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seth Parasmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ118
1. This is an appeal by the State Govt. under Section 467, Criminal P.C.2. The respondent Seth Parasmal son of Motilal was charged with the contravention of Clause 2 of the Provincial Govt.'s Order regulating export of ghee No. 4860-VII-F dated 18.5.1943, punishable under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, for exporting 23 tins of ghee to Sambalpur.3. The respondent was convicted by the trial Court & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The conviction was set aside by the Additional Ses. J. Balaghat, on two grounds. The learned Additional Ses. J. held that prosecution failed to prove that any mode of publication of the Order was prescribed as required by Section 119 of the Defence of India Rules, or that the Order was published in : that manner. The learned Judge placed reliance on two decisions of the Court reporter in Shakoor v. Emperor I.L.R (1944) Nag. 150 and Babulal Rajjulal v. Emperor I.L.R (1915) Nag. 762. The first decision was concerned with an order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Chatrappa Tippanna and ors. Vs. Dastgirsaheb Mahamadsaheb and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom80; (1951)53BOMLR793; ILR1952Bom323
Rajadhyaksha, J.(1) This is an application by certain debtors who were the applicants in a debt adjustment application No. B-154 of 1945 before the Chairman of the Debt Adjustment Board at Muddebihal. It appears that between the applicants and the creditors there were certain transactions and the dispute with respect to those transactions resulted in an award decree dated October 16, 1931. The terms of the award decree were as follows: 'The respondents (debtors) should pay the appellants (creditors) within two years, that is, before 16-10-1933, Rs. 900 with interest thereon at 18 per cent. The amount was to remain a charge on the land in dispute. If the respondents failed to pay the sum within the said period the appellants should obtain possession of the land as purchasers and enjoy possession thereof as absolute owners. Thereafter, the respondents will have no proprietary rights on the land. In case of necessity the respondents should pass a sale deed according to the desire of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ganesh Varde Vs. Fatma Daud Taraporwala and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom70; (1951)53BOMLR821; ILR1952Bom83
Dixit, J.[1] This revisional application raises aquestion of rateable distribution under Section 73, CivilP. C. and the facts necessary to understand thequestion are these. [2] The applicant obtained against Opponent No. 1 a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,386-9-0 in civil Suit No. 196 of 1917 on 7-2-1948. Opponent No. 2 to the application obtained a money decree for a sum of RS, 1,285-6-0 against the same defendant in civil suit no. 191 of 1947 on 33-1-1948. The petitioner had applied for attachment before judgment upon the moveable property of the defendant. The attachment was granted and the same was made absolute under the decree. Opponent No. 2 also had applied for attachment before judgment upon the defendant's moveable property and that attachment too was made absolute under the decree.[3] The moveable property in respect of which attachment was sought and levied happened to be property of a perishable nature and it appears that the property was sold, pending the opponent's suit and a...
Tag this Judgment!Zikar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ749
ORDER1. The order in this case will also govern miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 168 and 169 of 1950.2. The application is for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the conviction of the applicant and his two advocates for contempt of Court.3. Leave is sought under Article 132(1) of the Constitution or alternatively under Article 134(1)(c) thereof.4. The decision holding the applicants guilty of contempt is not affected by any substantial Question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Shri Bobde, however, contended that the power of the Court to punish for contempt is derived from Article 215 and so the case fulfils the requirement of Article 132(1). This Court has been constituted a Court of record by its letters patent. The power of this Court to punish for contempt is thus inherent in itself as a Court of record. Article 215 does not confer any new power on this Court which it did not already possess A question of law as to the Interpretation of the Constitution ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed HusaIn Kasambhai Mansuri Vs. J.K. Trivedi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom453; (1952)54BOMLR659; ILR1953Bom1
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is a petition challenging an order made by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property with regard to the tenancy right of the petitioner. It seems that one Hassanbhai was a tenant of a room and the landlady was Bai Chanchal. Hassanbhai left India for Pakistan and he was declared an evacuee, and the petitioner's case is that when he left India he surrendered his tenancy to the landlady and thereafter she created a tenancy in favour of the petitioner. After Hassanbhai was declared an evacuee, on 14th July 1950, a notification was issued by the Deputy Custodian declaring his tenancy right an evacuee property. Admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner. Under Section 7 if the petitioner has any interest in the property, he is entitled to be served with a notice, and the question is whether on the admitted facts the petitioner had any interest in the property.[2] Mr. Joshi's contention is that Bai Chanchal could not in law create a tenancy in favour of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid Khan MubIn Khan Vs. Mohomed Ali Humayun
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom67; (1951)53BOMLR817
Dixit, J.[1] This is a second appeal in execution in which Mr. Chandrachud for the appellant has raised two questions of law.[2] The decree giving rise to the execution application was obtained by the respondent against two persons, viz. Shaikh Taj Mahomed Shaikh Yunas and Shaikh Hasan Shaikh Yunas on l8bh October 1947, in Suit No. 732 of 1917. That was a suit filed by the respondent against the defendants claiming a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,775-5-0 and all costs of suit and also claiming a decree that if the defendants failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff should recover the said amount by sale of the property mentioned in Para. 1 of the plaint. There was a prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff had got a charge under Section 55, Transfer of Property Act, on the property in suit and that a decree to the effect that the plaintiff should recover the decretal amount by sale of the pro-party should be pissed, The decree, so far as material, runs as follows :'The plaintiff do recov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »