Mumbai Court July 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.
Jayashankar Mulshankar and anr. Vs. Mayabhai Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom122; (1952)54BOMLR11; ILR1952Bom514
Chagla, C.J.[1] The question that we have to consider in this Full Bench is whether the time that elapses between the pronouncement of the judgment and the signing of the decree should be excluded under Section 12(2), Limitation Act, and it it is to be excluded whether it should be excluded wholly or should be excluded under certain limitations. The facts that give rise to that Full Bench may be briefly stated. The trial Court delivered its judgment in Ahmedabad on 1.5.1918. The decree was signed on 29-6-1918. The plaintiffs filed the appeal to the District Court on 4.8.1948, and the question that arose was whether the appeal was in time. The learned District Judge took the view that the appeal wag out of time and the same view was taken by Dixit J. in second appeal. Dixit J. gave leave under the Letters Patent and the matter came before a Divisional Bench which referred the question to a Full Bench. A further fact may be stated which is also material that the plaintiffs applied in thi...
In Re: Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom285; (1951)53BOMLR1006; ILR1952Bom507
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is a reference made under Section 57, Stamp Act, and the facts leading up to the reference are very brief. A lease was executed on 9-12-1949, whereby the lessor, one Khan Bahadur Seth Nanabhai Hormuaji Bhiwandiwala, demised upto the lessee for a period of 5 years the salt pans and land known as Hormuzed Salt Pans situated in Dadar Taluka near Vadala, Station. In respect of this lease two amounts were paid: Rs. 83,000 on 2-11-1945, and Rs. 22,000 on 24.6. 1948, and the question that arises for our determination is whether this is a lease falling under Article 35 (a) (iii) or under Article 35 (b), and in order to decide that question what we have to determine is whether those two amounts paid constitute rent reserved under this lease or they constitute a fine or premium or money advanced, and no rent was reserved under the lease.[2] Now, neither 'rent' nor 'premium' is defined under the Stamp Act and, therefore, we have to turn to the Transfer of Property Act for the...
Shankar Nathu Vs. Gangaram Nathu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom127; (1952)54BOMLR75; ILR1952Bom485
Bhagwati, J.[1] This is a first appeal from the decision of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divi-sion) at Jalgaon who decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition.[2] One Nathu Halwai and his two sons Gangaram and Shankar were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Nathu had settled down at Jalgaon having migrated from Agra. He had made good and had acquired considerable immovable properties and had also established a confectionery and a money lending business. In the year 1922 he started a grocery business, putting forward his son Shankar as a partner along with an outsider Sakharam. That partnership business was started in the name of Shanker Sakharam. Sakharam continued as a partner until 7th June 1923, when he retired, and Shanker continued the grocery business thereafter by himself, Nathu in the meanwhile died in the year 1923 just before the dissolution of the partnership between Shanker and Sakharam. Shanker was more literate than his brother Gangaram and he continued to m...
Venilal Rangildas Vs. Gandabhai Bhagwandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom222; (1952)54BOMLR72; ILR1952Bom502
ORDER[1] This revision application raises a question of rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C., and although the facts are complicated, the necessary and essential facts for the determination of this question are very simple. The petitioner obtained a money decree against his judgment-debtor and in execution of that decree he attached under Order 21, Rule 52, a fund of Rs. 3,516 belonging to the judgment-debtor and lying deposited in the Court of the City Magistrate, Surat, This fund continued to remain in the City Magistrate's Court 'and was ultimately Bent to the executing Court in 1946. The opponent made an application for attachment under his decree prior to this fund being received by the executing Court in 1946, and the only question that I have to determine on this application is whether for the purposes of Section 73 it could be said that this fund was received by the executing Court when the attachment was levied on 24-1-1939, or whether the fund was received by t...
State Government of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hiralal Tejulal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ325
1. Respondent Hiralal was tried on two charges, viz., (i) for selling cement at a price higher than the price fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Akola, and (ii) for selling 4 bags of cement without the authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Akola. on the 4th June 1949, at Balapur, punishable respectively under Clauses 2 and 2(b) of the Central Provinces and Berar Cement (Control) Order, 1947, hereafter called the Order, read with Section 12 of the Central Provinces and Berar Specified Commodities (Control), Act, 1946. Clause 2 of the Order is as follows:No person shall sell or offer to sell cement at a price higher than that fixed by the Provincial Government.Clause 2(b) of the Order says that no person shall Sell cement when the quantity to be sold is less than 100 bags unless authorised In writing by the Deputy Commissioner of the district in which he resides or carries on business or by the person appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in writing in that behalf. The power of the Provinc...
Quazi AzimuddIn Quazi Ali and ors. Vs. Hercules Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom61; (1952)54BOMLR773
Tendolkar, J.[1] This is a claim against an insurance company for loss arising out of fire. The suit was originally filed by one Kazi Ali who died pending the suit and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record subsequently as plaintiffs. Kazi Ali was carrying on business as a carting and transporting agent. It was his case that one Ebrahim Coka another person by name Sopher and a firm called Abdul Satar & Co. engaged him to transport certain bales of cloth and yarn from Bombay to Shrivardhan in Janjira State. Owing to certain circumstances, into the details of which it is unnecessary to go 181 bales out of those bales, which were originally intended for export from Janjira, could not be exported, and they had to be brought back and stored at a place called Khandpale where Kazi Ali used to reside. These goods arrived at Khand-palo in the month of May 1944. It is the plaintiffs' caso that Kazi Ali built a godowu in or about, the month of November 1945 and stored the...
Phiroz Framroze Taraporewalla and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom283; (1952)54BOMLR233; ILR1952Bom617
Chagla, C.J.[1] This revision application raises a question as to the jurisdiction of the Poona Magistrate to hear an appeal from an order of the Chief Officer, Poona Borough Municipality, with regard to assessment of the property of the petitioners in Poona, after the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act came into force. The assessment was made by the Chief Officer on 31-12-1949, and the assessee preferred an appeal to the Magistrate on 28-1 1950, and the new Act, (LIX [69] of 1949) came into force on 15-3 1960. Under Section 406 (1) of the now Act, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under the Act shall he heard and determined by the Judge, and 'the Judge' is defined, for the purpose of Poona, as the Judge of the Small Caused Court. Therefore, the contention is that although the petitioners had preferred their appeal to the Magistrate under the Municipal Boroughs Act, by reason of the new Act coming into force and by reason of Section 403 the Magistrate ...
The State of Bombay Vs. Heman Santlal Alreja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom16; (1951)53BOMLR837
Chagla, C.J. [1] This appeal arises out of a petition challenging an order of requisition made under Section 6 (4) (a), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, requisitioning the premises of the petitioner who occupied them as a sub-tenant. When this petition first came up before Tendolkar J. he held that Act XXXIII [33] of 1948 was void. The State of Bombay came in appeal and we held Heman Santlal Alreja v. State of Bombay, 53 com. L.R. 355, that that Act was not void and remanded the petition to the learned Judge for disposal on merits. The learned Judge considered various preliminary points that were raised with regard to the validity of legislation dealing with requisition. He came to the conclusion that Act XXXIII [33] of 1948 amended by the Bombay Land Requisition (Amendment) Act, 1950, (Act II [2] of 1950) and further amended by the Bombay Land Requisition (Second Amendment) Act, 1950, (Act XXXIX [39] of 1950) was void on various grounds and he also held that the order of requisition...
The State of Bombay Vs. Narasu Appa Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom84; (1951)53BOMLR779; ILR1951Bom775
Chagla, C.J.[1] These two appeals and one application for revision and one reference raise the same question with regard to the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946. In appeal No. 331 of 1951 the Sessions Judge of South Satara held that the Act was invalid and acquitted the accused. Government have preferred an appeal from the order of acquittal. In appeal No. 113 of 1951 the Magistrate, First Class, Kaira, also took the same view and from his order of acquittal Government have also appealed. In the application for revision the Resident Magistrate, Mebsana, convicted the accused under s. 5 of the Hindu Bigamous Mar. riages Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Ra. 100. An appeal was preferred to the Sessions Judge, Meh. sana, and the learned Session Judge dismissed the appeal. In reference No. 16 of 1951 the Sessions Judge, South Satara, has referred to us the order of conviction passed by the Resident Magistrate, Fi...
Bhaichand Tarachand and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom233; (1952)54BOMLR69; ILR1952Bom480
Chagla, C.J. [1] This is a petition filed by certain members of the Digambar Jain community of Akluj in the Sholapur District. At Akluj there is a Jain Temple, and the question that is raised by this petition is whether the Harijans are entitled to enter this temple by reason of the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947. That Act was placed on the statute book in order to remove certain disabilities from which the Harijans suffered, and one of the moat glaring disabilities was that Harijans were not allowed to worship along with other Hindus in Hindu temples. The contention of Mr. Das is that on a true constitution of this Act, if Hindus had a right by law or custom to worship in this particular temple, then the Harijans would have a similar right. But if Hindus themselves have no right to enter into this temple, then no right has been conferred upon the Harijans by this Act. The contention, on the other hand, put forward on behalf of the State by the Advocate-General is that this Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »