Mumbai Court June 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.
Krishnaji Narayan Vs. Neelappa Shidlingappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom105; (1951)53BOMLR868
ORDER[1] Two suits were filed in 1941 and 1948 in the Tikota Court which was in the Kurundwad State. After the merger of that State, the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act was made applicable on 15th December 1948, to Tikota, and the last day for making an application under Section 4 was 15th June 1949. These suits were transferred to the Bijapur Court on 4th August 1949. An application was made to the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bijapur, for the transfer of these suits to the Court constituted under the B.A.D. It. Act in January 1950. The learned Judge held that these suits were not liable to be transferred under Section 19 (1), and these two revision applications are preferred against this decision.[2] It is clear that those two suits were pending at the date when an application under Section 4 could have been made under the B.A.D.R. Act, and that is the test which has been laid down in Somabhai v. Narandas 61 Bom. L.R. 461 to be applied in order to decide whether a suit is liab...
Harprasad Ghashiram Gupta and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom184; (1951)53BOMLR938; ILR1952Bom427
[FACTS]One Harprasad G. Gupta (accused No. 1) was the manager and one Ardeshir Rustomji Mullan Phiroz (accused No. 2) was the Secretary of the Dhanraj Mills, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the mills). They were working under the orders and control of the accused No. 3, Ramgopal Ganapatrai Ruia who was the director of the mills, holding 60 per cent of the shares. A private limited company called Ramgopal Ganapatrai and Sons Ltd. Hereinafter reffrred to as R. G. and Sons, Ltd. Was the managing agent of the mills. The selling agency of the mills was with Ramriskhdas Balkison and Sons, Ltd. (hereinafter reffrred to as R. B. & Sons Ltd.) In both these companies (R. G. and Sons Ltd. And R. B. and Sons Ltd.) the accused No. 3 and the members of his family held major number of shares. The managing director of both these private limited companies was the accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 was the manager and the accused No. 2 the secretary of the mills and also of these two companies viz., B.G. & S...
Shivaji Narayan Vs. Peeka Lokappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom174; (1951)53BOMLR864; ILR1952Bom181
Bavdekar, J.[1] This is a second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of possession of land from the respondent upon the ground that he wanted the land for personal cultivation. The tenant was protected by the present Tenancy Act and that was why the landlord filed a suit giving a reason which would enable him to obtain possession of the property from the tenant after the expiration of the contractual tenancy. The only contention taken up at the trial, which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the present appeal, is whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection was based upon Section 85, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That section says: 'No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be fettled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal a Manager, the Collector or the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the Pro...
State Government Vs. Hifzul Rahman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ98
1. This appeal is by the State Government against the acquittal of the first, second and the fourth respondents by the appellate Court of an offence under Section 464, Penal Code, and of the respondent 3 under Section 379, Penal Code, after conviction by the first Court.2. The case of the prosecution as set forth in the challan is far from clear. The complaint was made that the four respondents to the appeal and two others committed offences under Sections 420, 465, 317 and 411, Penal Code, in the following circumstances. Respondent 1 was a member of the Hinganghat Local Board in charge of Girad and Nima Cattle-pounds for about 6 or 7 years. During that time -with the help of 'gang members' (presumably referring to the associates of respondent 1) at cattle pounds at Mangrool, Kora, Wasi and Girad, Hifzul Rahman used to seize free cattle of the entire public, put false dates, show their auction within 7 or 12 days and used to give the cattle either to his gang members for a low amount o...
Pralhad Krishna Kurane Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom1; (1951)53BOMLR717; ILR1952Bom134
Baydekar, J. [1] This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a person, who was originally detained under an order dated 1-4-1948 under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act. It appears that the applicant detenu was arrested in pursuance of tha order on 13-2-1950 and detained in the House of Correction at Byculla under the authority of the order. On 26-2-1950 the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, came into force, and there was consequently passed against, the applicant an order under that Act detaining him under Section 3 of the Act, Subsequently by an order passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons for the Inspector General of Prisons the applicant was transferred from the House of Correction at Byoulla to the Thana Jail, and he was detained there until the applicant made the present application. Under the Preventive Detection Act, 1950, as it stood originally, an order of detention would have remained in force only for a period of one year from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›