Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom95; (1951)53BOMLR870; ILR1952Bom213
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Khandala walla, Judge of the City Civil Court, dismissing the appellant's petition for setting aside an award. The respondent is a member of the Native Share & Stock Brokers Association, Bombay. The petitioner in a non-member and the employed the respondent in the year 1847 as her broker, and pursuant to her instructions the broker carried out certain transactions. There was a dispute between the broker and the constituent as to what the broker was entitled to and the dispute was referred to arbitration under the Rules of the Native Share & Stock Brokers' Association, and the arbitrator made an award an favour of the broker. This award was challenged by the petitioner. The challenge was made on various grounds, but inasmuch as we are in favour of the petitioner on one of the grounds alleged by her, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds which were placed before the learned Judge below and which have been dealt with by him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom160; (1952)54BOMLR55; ILR1952Bom455
[1] This is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge, Nasik, appointing the Deputy Nazir as guardian of the property of a minor by name Khanderao. The facts leading up to the application arc these.[2] One Kachu died on April 15, 1945, leaving him surviving two widows, Bikhama and Sita, a son by Sita called Khanderao, a daughter by Sita called Kamal and a married daughter by name Bhagu by Rakhama. Rakhama is the senior widow, while Sita, the mother of Khanderao, is the junior widow. It appears that Kachu left at his death a house and lands both Bagayat and Jirayat. He had a grape garden and also a guava garden. The evidence shows that the net income of the property left by Kachu is between Rs. 3.000 and Rs. 4,000. Khande-rao was just an infant, being about 5 years of age, when the application was made on 19th December 1949, for the appointment of the guardian of the person of Khanderao and Kamal and for the appointment of the guardin of the property of Khanderao. It was allege...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1952CriLJ614
ORDERDeo, J.1. This order will also dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 308 to 313 of 1951.2. These are applications for revision against the conviction of the applicants under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV of 1946), for contravention of Clauses 3, 17 and 20 of the Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers' Licensing Order, 1949, and for breach of condition No. 5 of the applicants' licenses which are of class B. Contravention of these clauses is not uniform in all cases. There are findings of fact of contraventions of these clauses, and they are not challenged.3. It is contended that the Licensing Order is 'ultra vires' as the term 'cotton textiles' in Section 2(e)(ii) of the Act does not include yarn.4. Ginned cotton is the fibrous material which is first converted into yarn which is a woven fibre for making cloth, ropes, tape etc. By drawing and twisting yarn it is made into thread. Yam and thread are used to make a pliable piece by interlacing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom209; (1952)54BOMLR765
(1) This is a suit by the owner of a Government promissory note, which has been negotiated by 3 forged endorsement, against the endorsers and endorsees of the promissory note, claiming that the said note, or the new note into which it was converted, or the value thereof, may be given to him. The facts, which are not in dispute, and are taken to have been admitted by the parties, are that a Government promissory note for Rs. 10,000, which had been duly endorsed over to the plaintiff, was endorsed to the first defendant bank. The first defendant bank took delivery of this promissory note on behalf of their constituent one Istiwarlal Joshi. The first defendants in their turn endorsed over the promissory note to the second defendant bank who received it on behalf of their constituents, the fourth defendants, in a loan account of the fourth defendants with them. That was on 20-9-1945. On 18-10-1945, the second defendant bank endorsed over the said note to the third defendants under instruct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom468; (1951)53BOMLR713; ILR1952Bom207
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, by which he convicted the accused under Section 66 (b) of the Prohibition Act and sentenced him to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300, in default rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.2. The case for the prosecution was that accused No. 1 and his wife, who was acquitted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, were in possession of 171/2 drams of rectified spirit and this possession was contrary to the provisions of Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act. Accused No. 1, the appellant before us is the owner of a tailoring shop and that shop was raided on August 19, 1949, at 8 p.m. The raid took place in the presence of panchas, and according to the prosecution in the rear portion of the shop 171/2 drams of rectified spirit was found. The defence of the accused was that this spirit was planted by the police through the rear door and he was innocent of the offence with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom75; (1951)53BOMLR825
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Tendolkar dismissing a suit on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a mortgage suit. In fairness to the learned Judge it must be stated that the point now urged before us by Mr. Mistree was never urged, nor was it considered by the learned Judge. The learned Judge dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the value of the subject-matter was below Rs. 25,000, and therefore the Court that could try the suit was the City Civil Court, and by reason of Section 12 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, the jurisdiction of the High Court was excluded. Now, this is a suit to enforce a mortgage. The mortgage was created by the deposit of title deeds. It is an equitable mortgage. The deposit was made in Bombay (that is the averment in the plaint) and the property in respect of which the mortgage was created is situated in Ajmer, The amount claimed in the plaint at the foot of the mortgage is less than Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom125; (1952)54BOMLR632
Shah, J. (1) The plaintiffs have filed this suit to enforce a mortgage in their favour created by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and the husband of defendant No. 3 as members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. The mortgage was an equitable mortgage effected on July 19, 1947, and was for a sum of Rs. 42,000. The mortgagors agreed to pay interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem by equal monthly instalments. After the mortgage was effected by the mortgagors, Panachand Keshrichand, the husband of defendant No. 3, died on March 23, 1948. Defendant No. 3 is his heir and legal representative. On July 28, 1948, the attorneys of the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to repay Rs. 42,000 with interest at the rate stipulated. The defendants, however, failed to pay the amount demanded. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the present suit seeking to recover Rs. 42,000 as principal, and Rs. 14,640 as interest due up to October 18, 1950, with further interest on the amount of Rs 42,000 at the ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom72; (1951)53BOMLR834; ILR1952Bom201
Chainani, J.[1] This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 19 (f), Arms Act and under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, and the sentences passed upon him by the Sessions Judge, South Satara.[2] The accused was arrested on March 12, 1950, I connection with some other offence. On March 20, 1950, he informed the Police Sub-Inspector, witness Bajirac Joshi, in the presence of panchas that he was in possession of a bomb, that he had concealed it in the compound of the dilapidated wada of Shamrao Nikam in the village of Chinehani and that he would point out the place at which he had kept the bomb. He then took the police and the panchas to the wada of Shamrao Nikam. There he removed a stone from the comer of one of the walls and took out a handgrenade. Thereafter from a heap of stones he took out two live revolver cartridges and produced them before the police. On these facts, the accused was subsequently sent up for trial forcommitting offences under Section 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1951Bom470; (1951)53BOMLR736; ILR1952Bom449
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an application by the petitioner under Article 228 of the Constitution. The petitioner is charged under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and he is being prosecuted for that offence. His contention is that Section 497 offends against the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and therefore Section 497 is bad and he cannot be prosecuted under that section. He wants this question to be determined by the High Court, and, therefore, he desires that the case which is pending before the Presidency Magistrate should be sent up to us so that we should decide this point. 2. Now, Section 497 defines adultery and adultery is defined as sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is the wife of another man and the intercourse must take place without his consent while the man knows or has reason to believe that the woman is the wife of another, man. The section also provides that the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor. What is contended by Mr. Peerb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom76; (1951)53BOMLR827; ILR1952Bom189
FACTS1. One Raja Dhanraj Girji (complainant) was the sole proprietor of a mill called Dhanraj Mills till 1935, in which year he converted the mills Into a limited company. He was the managing agent and chairman of the board of directors till 1937. In that year he transferred the managing agency of the limited company to Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia (accused No. 1) who remained in charge of the managing agency till 1943. In 1943 accused No. 1 formed two private limited companies, viz. Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons, Ltd., and Ramrikhdas Balkisan & Sons, Ltd., referred to hereinafter as R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd. R. G. & Sons, Ltd., was given the managing agency of the mills and R. B. & Sons, Ltd., was given the selling agency of the mills. The complainant was given 0-6-0 share in these two companies of R. G. & Sons, Ltd., and R. B. & Sons, Ltd., and the rest of the shares were mainly held by accused No. 1 and the members of his family. Till 1946 the complainant remained a chairman...
Tag this Judgment!