Mumbai Court March 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.
AllaudIn Allabux and ors. Vs. M.B. Meher and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom213; (1951)53BOMLR923; ILR1952Bom851
ORDER[1] This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or other writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, who is respondent 1, and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, who is respondent 2, to quash and get aside certain orders made by them. The matter arises in this way. The petitioner and cue Mahomed Shafi were partners and carried on business in the name and style of 'Cafe Grant Bakery' at 36, Station Road, Bandra. The partners claim to have been beneficially interested in the tenancy rights of a portion of the premises at 36, Station Road, Bandra, which the partnership oaupiad, although the rent bill in respect thereof was made out in the name of Mahomed Shafi, By an order male on 12 9.1950, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property declared the said Mahomed Shafi to be an evacuee, and his right, title and interest in the said partnership, viz , his 1/4th share, to be evacuee properly. A notificati...
Rangnath Khemraj Vs. Bai Thakorebai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom430; (1951)53BOMLR573; ILR1952Bom90
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a notice of motion taken out by respondent 6 requiring the appellant to deposit in Court the sum of Rs. 2,750 being the amount of the costs of the original suit as settled & paid by the Official Assignee of Bombay respondent 6, to his attorneys, & such further amount as to this Hon'ble Court may seem adequate for the costs of the Official Assignee of this appeal. It appears that the suit from which this appeal is preferred was dismissed by Shah J. on 3-8-1950. The learned Judge directed the appellant, who-was the plff. in the suit, to pay the costs of respondent 6 who is the assignee of his estate. From that judgment the appellant has come in appeal. 2. The order for costs made by the learned Judge was that the plff. should pay the taxed costs of respondent 6. The costs have not yet been taxed, & needless to say, as the costs have not been taxed, no attempt has been made or could be made by respondent 6 to execute that order against, the appellant. Therefore, it...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. Vs. K.C. Sen and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom209; (1951)53BOMLR917; ILR1952Bom839
ORDER[1] This is a rule for a writ of certiorari against the Industrial Court, Bombay, to quash some portions of standing orders settled by that Court in respect of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, which is now vested in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. It appears that on 24-5-1950. standing orders relating to the said Undertaking were settled by the Commissioner of Labour, under Section 35, Sub-section (2), Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Appeals were preferred under Section 36 of the said Act by the Best Workers Union and also by the General Manager of the Undertaking; and on 18-11-1950, the Industrial Court modified, added to and rescinded certain portions of the said standing orders and confirmed the rest. The grievance of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, in which the Best Undertaking now vests, is that several modifications, variations and additions made by the Industrial Court relate to substantive rights of the employees to cer...
Joseph Simon Govre Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom416; (1951)53BOMLR680; ILR1951Bom700
Chainani, J. 1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 66(b) and Section 85(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 66(b) and one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 85(2) of the Act. 2. The charge against the accused was that on September 2, 1950, at about 11-80 p. m. he went near the house of witness Sutari and abused him under the influence of drink. 3. On merits we are satisfied that the conviction of the accused is correct. It has, however, been urged on his behalf that as this is the firstoffence committed by the accused, he should begiven the benefit of the Probation of OffendersAct. Section 92 of the Bombay Prohibition Actseems to contemplate that only persons, who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct.But Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Actspecifically state that the pro...
James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. Vs. the National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom147; (1951)53BOMLR556; ILR1952Bom344
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Shah J., by which he set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks & directed the Registrar to register the mark of the petitioners as a trade mark. The petitioners applied on 12-1-1943, to the Registrar of Trade Marks for the registration of their mark in connection with cotton sewing thread. There was an opposition by the appellants & the Registrar came to the conclusion that the mark which the respondents sought to register was likely to deceive & cause confusion & therefore he refused to register the mark. From this decision of his an appeal was preferred to the High Court, &, as I just said, Shah J. after hearing the appeal came to the conclusion that the Registrar was wrong & that the respondents were entitled to have their trade mark registered.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Desai that this appeal is not competent. The judgment of Shah J., is subject to appeal provided it constitutes a judgment within th...
Agarwal, Ayengar and Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom397; (1951)53BOMLR689; ILR1952Bom105
Bavdekar, J.1. His Lordship, after narrating facts and dealing with points not material to the report, proceeded :] The learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellants, contends, however, that Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, even after the amendment of the Act, by which cotton and certain other commodities were added to the definition of 'essential commodities' in the Act, did not permit the Central Government to direct by an Order that there should be exercised by the Textile Commissioner control over the supply or the prices of lickerin wire. He says that the section merely permits the Central Government by a notified Order to regulate the production, distribution and supply of an essential commodity and trade and commerce therein. It does not permit directly control over the production, distribution and supply of commodities, which are not essential commodities, nor does it permit the regulation of the trade and commerce in such non-essenti...
Jehangirji Jamshedji and ors. Vs. Nariman Burjorji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom318; (1953)55BOMLR209
Rajadhyaksha, J.(1) These are two Letters Patent appeals against the decision of Gajendragadhkar in Second Appeals Nos. 279 and 281 of 1943. The dispute in these cases relates to a right of way which the plaintiffs claim over certain lands to the east of the houses belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants. The precise position of the houses of the plaintiffs and the defendants and of the lands over which a right of way is claimed will be found from exh. 145. The plaintiffs owned Survey Nos. 86 to 92. Adjodning the Survey No. 86 to its north there is a Dehla (passage) and beyond it are the survey: Nos. 80 and 81 belonging to defendant 1. Beyond those survey numbers and to the north of the survey number belonging to defendant 1 are Survey Nos. 73, 77 and 78 which belong to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. To the east of these houses of the plaintiffs and the defendants, there is a certain open piece of land which has been shown in the map by the letters A, B, C, D and E. Between these piec...
Alexius Jacob Rebello Vs. Alfred Camillo Rebello
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom203; (1951)53BOMLR908; ILR1952Bom825
[1] This is a suit for the administration of the estate of one Francis Anthony Cyril Rebello, who died at Bandra on or about 20-11-1934 leaving a will dated 21-12-1923, by which he appointed his cousin Alexius Joseph Rebello as his sole executor and residuary legatee. The said Alexius Joseph Rebello predeceased the said testator; and on 3 9-1937, defendant 1 was granted letters of administration with the will annexed of the estate of the deceased Fransis Anthony Cyril Rebello by the District Judge, Thana,[2] Apart from the question of ascertaining the estate left by the deceased, which is always a matter for the Commissioner of this Court to determine, certain questions of law have bean raised before me. One of them relates to the interpretation of clause (w) of the will and another to a legacy under clause (d) of the will to the Bishop of Damaun.[3] One D. Jose Da Costa Nunes. Archbishop of Goa and Damaun, who is known as the Patriarch of the East Indies, was made a party defendant at...
Hasanalli MohomedhusseIn Shariffi Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Bom432; (1951)53BOMLR681
Bavdekar, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in regard to a person foe whose externment an order has been made by the Commissioner of Police of the City of Bombay under the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902. The order is challenged on various grounds but the only one which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the present application is that Section 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, makes it incumbent upon the Police Commissioner, when the externee is not called upon to remove himself outside the Province, to call upon him to go to such a place within the Province and by such route as the Commissioner of Police shall prescribe. It is said that in this case the order, which has been passed, does not call upon the externee to remove himself to a particular place nor was called upon to go to that place by a particular route.2. Now, it is not in dispute that the order does not call upon the applicant to go...
Chandrashankar Manishankar Vs. Abhla Mathur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom56; (1951)53BOMLR861
FACTS[1] The property in suit which consisted of (1) a house survey No. 89, and a wada, (2) survey No. 267, (8) survey No. 268, (4) survey No. 355 and (5) survey No. 3S1 originally belonged to one Chhatia who was one of the four or five sons of Butal. One Jinia was the full brother of Chhatia, while Harji and Devla were his step-brothers. In the year 1921 Chhatia died childless, leaving him surviving a widow by name Jibai. Prior to his death, Chhatia executed a writing called a will on 8th September 1931. Under this will Chhatia purported to give survey No. 89 and survey No. 335 to his wife Jibai for maintenance and he gave survey Nos. 267, 268 and 361 to Mathur who was his nephew, being the son of Harji, his stepbrother. In about the middle of 1932 Bai Jibai contracted re-marriage called natra marriage and she died in 1935.[2] On 10th April 1932, Jibai sold to Mathur, the nephew of Ohhatia, survey No. 39 and survey No. 855, the object of the sale being to pay offthe debts mentioned in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »