Mumbai Court February 1952 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.
Raghubir Narayan Lotlikar and ors. Vs. G.A. Fernandes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom76; (1952)54BOMLR505
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Shah by which he held that this Court had no jurisdiction to try a suit for specific performance.(2) The suit came to be filed under the following circumstances. In June 1947 the plaintiffs purchased a certain property. The defendants were residing in different portions of the property as tenants, and on July 15, 1947, the plaintiffs gave a notice to quit to some of the defendants. They followed up the notice to quit by instituting ejectment proceedings in the Small Causes Court. Then an agreement was arrived at between the landlords and the tenants on October 23, 1947, and the agreement in substance was this that the tenants should give all reasonable facilities to the landlords for the purpose of remodelling and repairing the floors of the said property according to the plan sanctioned by the Municipality. It was also agreed that the landlords would not seek to eject any of the tenants on the ground that the premises we...
Vithal Maruti Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom451; (1952)54BOMLR626; ILR1953Bom51
Vyas, J.[1] This is an appeal by one Vithal son of Maruti who has been convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, nth Court, Kurla, Bombay under Section 5, Sub-section (5), read with Section 6, Sub-section (3), Bombay Beggars Act (Bom. XXIII [23] of 1945). The order passed against him is one of detention for a period of ten years in a certified institution of Male Beggars Home, Worli, and it has further been directed that a period of one year out of the above mentioned term of ten years should be converted into a term of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The allegation against the appellant was that he was found bogging in a public place on 7-10-1951. The learned trial Magistrate declared him a beggar under Section 5, Sub-section (4), of the Act, and proceeded to pass the order, mentioned above, against him under Section 5, Sub-section (5), read with Section 6, Sub-section (3), of the Act.[2] Now Mr. Parulekar's first contention, in this appeal, is that the entire scheme of the Bo...
Jibhaoo Harisingh Rajput Vs. Ajab Singh Fakira Rajput
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom145; (1952)54BOMLR971; ILR1953Bom253
Rajadhyaksha, J.[1] These are two applications in revision against the orders passed by the District Judge of West Khaudesh, and the applicants in both the applications are creditors. The debtors in each case made applications (or an adjustment of their debts contending that the transactions of sale evidenced by the oral vardi given to the village officers were in the nature of a mortgage. They, therefore, claimed accounts on that basis and asked foe adjustments of their debts. The creditors, on the other hand, contended that the transactions were sales out and out. The Debt Adjustment Court raised an issue in each case, 'whether the transaction was in the nature of a mortgage.' But the Court did not think it feasible to record any finding on that issue. The principal reason for this was that even if, on the evidence adduced by the debtors and from the surrounding circumstances, the Court came to the conclusion that the real nature of the transaction was that of a mortgage, still it co...
Kashinath Bhaskar Datar Vs. Bhaskar Vishweshwar Karve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR543
Boss, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit on two mortgages. The first was executed on April 7, 1931, by the defendant and his father. The second was dated December 17, 1935, and was executed by the defendant alone. The first was for a sum of Rs. 9,500, the second for Rs. 3,500. The same property was mortgaged each time. The claim on the two deeds together was for Rs. 20,774-3-0.2. These mortgages were in favour of one Narayan Gopal Sathe. On March 28,1940, the mortgagee assigned them both to the plaintiff who now sues on them.3. The defence was that both mortgages were satisfied. The main evidence on which the defendant relied to prove satisfaction was an agreement dated October 17, 1937, executed by the mortgagee Narayan Gopal Sathe in favour of the defendant. The document has been excluded from evidence by the trial Court as well as by the High Court on appeal on the ground that it required registration. It this document is excluded, then there is a concurrent finding of fact...
Bhanjee Munjee and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom476; (1952)54BOMLR693
Chagla, C.J.[1] The petitioners who are the appellants before us challenge an order of requisition made by the State of Bombay on 24-3-1951.[2] The order was made under Section 6, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and it contained a declaration that the premises had become vacant on or after the month of May 1950. The order did not state on the face of it the purpose for which the premises were requisitioned. A supplemental order was made by the State on 22-8-1951:, and that order stated that the premises were requisitioned for a public purpose, and the public purpose was; 'housing a person without accommodation.'[3] Act XL of 1951 was enacted in November 1951 and that Act validated orders passed previously, if in fact the premises were requisitioned ton a public purpose; and in this case Government, relying on the Amending Act, sought to establishin the Court below that in fact the premises were requisitioned for a public purpose; and the question that arises for our determination is...
State of Bombay Vs. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom468; (1952)54BOMLR681
Chagla, C.J.[1] Government issued an order under Section 6(4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act on 2-3-1951, requisitioning a fiat situated in a trust property of which the petitioners are the trustees. The order stated that on inquiry it was found that the premises specified in the order had become vacant on or after the month of May 1950. The petitioners' contention was that the order was not valid inasmuch as the premises which were sought to be requisitioned were not premises within the meaning of the expression used in the statute. The contention of the Government on the other hand was that it was not open to the Court to go behind the declaration made in the order and that once the Government had declared that the promises were vacant, the declaration was binding upon the Government both with regard to the vacancy of the premises and the fact that the premises were the premises as defined in the statute. The learned Judge below rejected the contention of Government and held ...
Chirangi Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1212
1. Chirangi, Lohar, 45 years, a widower, his unmarried daughter, only son Ghudsai, 12 years, and nephew Khotla (P.W. 2) lived together at Idnar, Narayanpur tahsil, Bastar district. Their relations were cordial, and Ghudsai was attentive and considerate to his fattier who had an abscess in his leg for some time prior to he 3rd April 1951. During that afternoon, while Khotla was working in his field, Chirangi took an axe and went with Ghudsai to a nearby hillock, known as Budra Meta, in order to gather 'siadi' leaves. When Khotla returned to his house in the evening, Ghudsai was not there and he found Chirangi asleep with the blood-stained axe beside him. Chirangi woke up at midnight, and when Khotla questioned him concerning his son's whereabouts he replied:I had become insane. I have killed my son in Budra Meta. It occurred to me that a tiger had come to me. I then dealt blows with the axe.2. On the following morning, Chirangi repeated ' this version to the mukaddam Bandi (P.W. 3). Ghu...
Jagwant Kaur Kesarsing Dang and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom461; (1952)54BOMLR678; ILR1953Bom44
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. By this application an order made by the Collector of Poona under Section 5, Bombay Land Requisition Act is being challenged. The order was made on 16th April 1951, and the order states :'Whereas it is necessary and expedient for the public purpose, viz. establishment of Kashiwadi Harijan Colony for the Poona City Municipal Corporation to requisition land situated at Poona City taluqa, Poona City District, Poona, specified is the schedule herewith appended,'It is for this purpose and in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 5 that the Collector has requisitioned the land in question. It would appear that there was a scheme called the Town Planning Scheme No. 3 framed by the Poona City Municipality in 1935 and this particular plot was earmarked for a Harijan Colony, and it was at the instance of the Municipal Corporation that the Collector in 1951 has requisitioned this particular plo...
Valchand Gulabchand Shah Vs. Manekbai Hirachand Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom137; (1952)54BOMLR901; ILR1953Bom356
Rajadhyaksha, J. (1) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Shah in First Appeal No. 284 of 1949 which confirmed the order of the Civil Judge. Senior Division, Sholapur, in Darkhast No. 883 of 1946. (2) One Hirachand Gulabchand and his sort Manoranjan filed a suit against Hirachand's two brothers, Shivlal Gulabchand and Walchand Gulabchand for an account of certain property which they alleged had been entrusted to the two defendants for management. During the pendency of the suit, Hirachand, plaintiff 1, died and his widow Manekbai and his minor son Chandrashekhar were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives and they were impleaded as plaintiffs 1A and 1B to the suit. Chandrashekhar being a minor was represented by his mother Manekbai as his next friend. During the course of the suit the parties referred their dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award and a decree in terms of the award was passed on August 1, 1945. Under th...
Madhav Raoji Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom385; (1952)54BOMLR433; ILR1952Bom1100
ORDER(1) The case for the prosecution was that the accused was driving a station wagon on May 28, 1951, at the island around Wellington Fountain opposite the Regal Cinema, and he caused injury to a pedestrian. A summons was served upon him to the effect that he had failed to report the accident at the police station, and he was prosecuted under Section 89 read with Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act. When the case went on before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, on the evidence the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence disclosed was a much more serious one; it was an offence under Section 116, viz., driving recklessly or dangerously; and thereupon the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 116 and fined him Rs. 75, and he directed that a sum of Rs. 80 out of this sum of Rs. 75 should be paid to the complainant as compensation.(2) The point raised by Mr. Kavalekar before me is that the conviction under Section 11...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »