Mumbai Court December 1952 Judgments
Alla Malua Kurmi and ors. Vs. Civil Judge Class I and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1096
ORDER1. This order will also govern the decisions of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 92 and 93 of 1952. These petitions are directed against the decisions of Shri S.N. Mishra, Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur, setting aside the decrees passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, Newra in three different suits preferred before it.2. It would appear from the copies of the plaints in these suits that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in each of these suits was for damages for wrongful seizure and impounding of their cattle. The Nyaya Panchayat decreed the plaintiffs' claim in each of these suits but it referred in its judgment to Section 22, Cattle Trespass Act. Thereupon respondents 2 to 4 went up in revision on the criminal side before the Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur. The learned Judge held that the Nyaya Panchayat had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits on the civil side, that it had jurisdiction to entertain them under the Cattle Trespass Act, that the claim under that Act was barred by time and t...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Vs. Ithi W/O Ganpat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1299
1. This appeal is filed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 417, Criminal P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 1753 of 1951.2. The respondents Vithi wife of Ganpat and Ambi mother of Ganpat were prosecuted under Section 6(1)(a) and (g) of the Prohibition Act for being in possession of illicitly distilled liquor and also apparatus for its manufacture.3. On 29.8.19S1, head constable Nasir Ahmed (P.W. 1) along with constable Jadish Singh (P.W. 2) and Zongdu (P.W. 4) raided and searched the house of the respondents in their presence. A mobil oil tin containing illicitly 'distilled liquor about 1 bottles, a tin containing boiled 'mahua' and an earthen pot smelling of fermented 'mahua' were seized from their house as per seizure memo (Exhibit P. 1). The respondents were tried summarily for the above offences. Both of them denied that the articles were found in their house. Respondent Vithi stated that these...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Hirachand Birla Vs. Yograjsing Shankarsing Parihar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom293; (1953)55BOMLR334; ILR1953Bom865
Chagla, C.J. (1) This is a petition filed by a successful candidate at an election held for a seat in the Bombay Legislative Assembly from the Erandol Taluka Constituency. A petition was filed by opponent 1 challenging the petitioner's election. Seven nominations were received for this election. Opponent 7, although he was duly nominated, withdrew from the contest. The scrutiny of the nominations was held on 27-11-1951, and on 28-11-1951, the Returning Officer published the list of valid nominations. The election took place on 7-1-1952, the counting of votes took place on 12-1-1952, and the result of the election was declared on 19-1-1952, and as already pointed out the petitioner was declared to be duly elected. The first opponent filed his election petition on 25-3-1952, and it reached the Election Commission on 27-3-1952. The Election Commission referred the petition to an Election Tribunal which was appointed for the trial of the petition, and the petitioner has now come before us ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Manilal Jethalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom365; (1953)55BOMLR377
Bavdekar, J.(1) This is an appeal by the Government or the State of Bombay against the acquittal of the respondent in respect of an Offence under Rule 10 (e) of Chapter XII of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.(2) The prosecution case was that permission was given to the respondent in the present case to construct a godown in his land. Revision Survey No. 361 of the City of Ahmedabad. This permission was granted to him on 26-11-1946, on the express condition not to use the premises as a factory. It appears that he wanted to revise the plans of the godown. So on 17-3-1947, again permission was given to him to use the premises, which he had already constructed as a godown, for storage of materials, but again subject to a condition not to use them as a factory. Subsequently it was found that the respondent had installed machinery in the godown for the purpose of running a factory, and the Municipality has, since that discovery, been attempting to get the factory remov...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Gulshan Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom337; (1953)55BOMLR308
Chagla, C.J. (1) This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner to challenge a requisitioning order. The petitioner is a tenant of a certain room on the second floor of Dada-chanji Building situated at Mazagaon, and the requisition order complained of was passed on 124-1952. The order was passed under Clause. (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and the order stated that the premises were Being requisitioned for a public purpose, viz. for housing a member of the staff of a Foreign Con sulate. The petition came before Tendolkar J. and the learned Judge dismissed it.(2) Now, various points have been urged before us by Mr, Gamadia on behalf Of the petitioner. In our opinion, it is sufficient to dispose of this appeal on one ground alone and it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised in the appeal, It is contended by Mr, Gamadia that housing a member of the stair of a Foreign Consulate is not a public purpose. We are unable to ag...
Tag this Judgment!Burjor Pestonji Sethna Vs. Nariman Minoo Todiwalla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom382; (1953)55BOMLR418; ILR1953Bom980
Chagla, C.J.(1)This appeal raises a question of jurisdiction of this Court to try a suit tiled in this Court. The learned Judge below held that as the subject-matter of the claim was below Rs. 25,000, the High Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit should have been instituted in the City Civil Court which has now been invested with jurisdiction to try suits up to Rs. 35,000 which were at one time triable by the High Court on its Original Side. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff himself valued the relief sought by him at more than Rs. 25,000.(2) The plaintiff is a tenant of a room on the third floor of a property known as Mazda Mansion situated at Warden Road, and the plaintiff's case is that his tenancy comprises in addition to the flat on the third floor a terrace and a room on the terrace which is above the third floor. The defendants purchased the property in question in May 1949 and the plaintiff's grievance in the suit is that by various acts the defendants deprived the p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kalu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom401; (1953)55BOMLR404; ILR1953Bom793
Bavdekar, J.1. These are three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Surat, under Section 56, Bombay Police Act, directing three persons, Kalu alias Hussein Mahamad, Kadwa Nathu Bhil and Peerbhai alias Peerubhai Husseinbhai, to remove themselves outside the limits of the Surat District. The Addl. District Magistrate has passed three separate orders in regard to the three petitioners, but all the three petitions involve one question of law, which is common to them. The grounds upon which action has been taken are also similar, and similar objections have been taken with regard to them. It would be convenient, therefore, to dispose of all the petitions by one judgment.2. The first point, which is common to the three petitions is with regard to the authority of the learned Additional District Magistrate, who has passed the orders under Section 56, Bombay Police Act in all the three cases. Section 56, Bombay Police ...
Tag this Judgment!Narbadabai and ors. Vs. Natverlal Chunilal Bhalakia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom386; (1953)55BOMLR408; ILR1953Bom851
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Justice Shah. In order to understand the nature of the litigation & few facts may be staled. One Purshottamdas Jhaverchand died in 1932 leaving three sons Jetha-lal. Chunilal and Mulchand. Purshottamdas was doing two businesses in the name of 'Popatlal Mulchand.' One was a yarn business and the other was a cloth business which was started in 1932. On 2-9-1938, a partnership agreement was entered into between Chunilal, Mulchand and the sons of Jethalal who had died in 1937 and the effect of the partnership agreement was that the business of Fopatlal Mulchand (Yarn) was to be carried on by the three branches represented by the three sons of Purshottamdas. With regard, to the cloth business an outsider was also interested and in respect of this business a partnership agreement was entered into on 4-11-1942, and that partnership agreement also dealt with the shares and the rights of the three branches represented...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivas R. Acharya and ors. Vs. Purshottam Chaturbhuj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom393; (1953)55BOMLR497
Desai, J. 1. The plaintiffs seek directions of this Court, which they say are necessary for the administration of a public charitable trust, known as 'Narayanwadi Temple Trust'. They have obtained sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92, Civil P. C. 10 institute this suit. 2. There is in Bombay what is known as 'Narayanwadi Temple' wherein are installed, deities of Shri Ramanuj and Shri BalaJi, worshipped by Hindu Vaishnavs who in this particular case are mostly Cutchi Lohanas of the Ramanuj sect. It appears that the temple and valuable properties belonging to it were being managed by one Ramanuj Acharya, who was officiating as an 'acharya' or guru' in 1929,' when the Advocate General of Bombay filed a suit being suit No. 654 of 1929 against him for a declaration that the properties belonging and appertaining to the said temple at Narayanwadi were held by him as a trustee of a public charitable and religious trust. An account of the management of the trust properties by the s...
Tag this Judgment!United Motors (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1952
Reported in: (1953)55BOMLR246
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the validity of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, being Act XXIV of 1952. The Act is broadly challenged on three grounds. The first ground is that the Legislature was not competent to enact this piece of legislation. The second ground is that it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution; and the third ground is that it contravenes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners before us carry on business of buying and selling motor cars on a large and extensive scale and they allege in the petition that the sales and purchases effected by them in the course of their business take place inter alia in and outside the State of Bombay, in the course of import of he goods into or export of the goods out of the territory of India and in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. They further allege that in a number of sales and purchases effected by them goods are actually delivered outside the State of Bombay as a direct result of such sales o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »