Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom198; (1953)55BOMLR74; ILR1953Bom431
ORDER[1] An interesting question arises in this revision application as to whether the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act was in force on 27-5-1950, when opponent 1 filed a suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. [2] Now, in order to properly construe Section 56 it is necessary to have the background of the previous legislation. Under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1939, it was provided by Section 85 that the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act should cease to have force in such areas where the Board was established on the date when the Board was so established, but Section 86 of the Act kept the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in force foe special purposes for three years from the date of the establishment of the Board. In this particular area with which we are dealing the Board was established on 1-5-1945. Therefore, under Section 85 the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act would cease to have force, but by reason of Section 86 it would continue to be in force...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ741
ORDERSinha, C.J.1. The petitioner has moved this Court for the issue of a writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Board of Revenue directing the Board to hear an application made by him to the Board on 1.12.1950 or, if it is held that the Board has no jurisdiction to hear it, directing it to return the application to the petitioner for presentation tit the appropriate authority and for issue of a direction to that authority to hear his application.2. The application made by the petitioner to the Board was under Section 195(5), Criminal P.C. In that application, the petitioner had prayed that a complaint made against him by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandla under Section 177, Penal Code, be ordered to he withdrawn. That application was heard by Shri S. Rajan who rejected it on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain it.3. Section 195(1)(a) of the Code provides that cognizance of any offence punish able under Sections 172 to 188, Penal Code,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom197; (1953)55BOMLR72; ILR1953Bom428
ORDER[1] Applications were made by creditors against the petitioner and his two brothers. The trial Court held that the petitioner and his two brothers constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family and the family was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act because their non-agricultural income exceeded the agricultural income beyond the sum of RS. 1500 laid down in the Act. In arriving at the non-agricultural income of the family both the Courts below have taken into consideration the income of the two brothers of the petitioner, one of whom is a Mamlatdar and the other is a bank clerk in Bombay, and Mr. Murdeshwar's contention is that in no view of the case can the income of the Mamlatdar and the income of the bank clerk be treated as joint family income. Mr. Murdeshwar is right that even a coparcener may have separate earnings, and if be earns by his own exertions and without the aid of joint family property, his earnings will not form part of joint family property unless be blen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom196; (1953)55BOMLR70; ILR1953Bom603
ORDER[1] The question that arises in this revision application is as to the proper interpretation to be put upon the expression used in Section 17, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, viz., 'total amount of debts due from the parson making an application under Section 4.' Mr. Datar's contention is that what has got to be taken into consideration is the amount of debts which are payable or recoverable on the date when the application is made. In this particular case, it is not disputed that the petitioner's debts were more than Rs. 15,000, there were decrees passed against him, the aggregate amount of which exceeded Rs. 15,000, but some of the decrees were payable by instalments, and if the teat wore to be applied as to what amount under these decrees was payable by the petitioner on the date of the application, when the amount would have been less than Rs. 15,000. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner does not satisfy the test laid down in Section 17, viz., that his t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom202; (1953)55BOMLR83; ILR1953Bom424
ORDER[1] There wore two brothers, Ganpat and Rambhau. The petitioner is the widow of Ganpat and she filed a suit against opponent 2 for the return of furniture let out to him on hire. Opponent 1, who is the son of Rambhau, made an application to the trial Court to be added as a party-plaintiff alleging that the furniture did not belong to the widow of Ganpat but was joint family property and therefore be was entitled to it. The learned Judge granted the application and added opponent 1 as the second plaintiff to the Suit. It is from that order that this revision application is preferred. [2] Now, the petitioner contested the right of opponent 1 to the furniture in question and therefore there was a conflict and a direct conflict between the petitioner and opponent 1. Notwithstanding this conflict the learned Judge agreed to Opponent 1 appearing on the record of the suit as plaintiff 2. I should have thought, apart from authorities, that in a case like this the proper order to make is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom302; (1953)55BOMLR223; ILR1953Bom597
Dixit, J.(1) In this case two questions arise for determination: (1) whether the plaintiff's adoption is proved, and (2) whether the alienations in suit are justified by legal necessity. The facts of the case in which these questions arise are simple.(2) There was a Hindu undivided family consisting of Govindappa and his three sons Karehanamappa, Doddahanamappa and Sannahanamappa. On 22-6-1891, Karehanamappa separated from his two younger brothers, & at the partition which took place between them family property consisting of survey Nos. 32, 150, 151, an open site and a threshing floor and some moveables fell to his share. Doddahanamappa and Sannahanamappa continued to live jointly as before. In 1899 Karehanamappa died sonless, leaving him surviving two widows Hanamawa and Yellawa. On 12-10-1900, these two widows effected a partition of their husband's property, and at this partition Hanamawa got about a half each of survey Nos. 150 and 151, the eastern portion of the open site and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom117; (1952)54BOMLR844; ILR1953Bom416
Chagla, C.J.(1) The respondents in appeal No. 58 of 1952 filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court on 4-2-1952, and the appellants filed a suit in this Court on 8-2-1952. The appellants took out a notice of motion to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the suit which they had filed in Calcutta. The respondents took out a notice of motion to stay the suit filed by the appellants under Section 10. The learned Judge refused to issue an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the Calcutta suit and he also dismissed the motion taken out by the respondents to stay the Bombay suit under Section 10. And these two appeals are preferred from the two orders passed by the learned Judge. (2) Now, with regard to appeal No. 58 of 1953, which is from an order of the learned Judge refusing to issue an injunction against the respondents restraining them from proceeding with the Calcutta suit, a preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Bhabha. It is clear that that order is made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom204; (1953)55BOMLR65; ILR1953Bom590
FACTS The Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. (plaintiffs) were carrying on business as a Spinning and Weaving Mills at Jalgaon, and for the purpose of that business they used to import charcoal within the jurisdiction of the Jalgaon Borough Municipality (defendants). There were difficulties about obtaining charcoal, with the result that the plaintiffs reported to the user of fuel oil or furnace oil for the purpose of heating their boiler. The defendants claimed that the fuel oil or the furnace oil which was thus imported by the plaintiffs within their jurisdiction fell under Item 73 of class III of Schedule 'A' to these rules and by laws framed by them and which provided for the levy of an octroi duty at the rate of annas -/4/- per maund on 'all articles of sizing used in mill industries, oils used for machinery, boiler composition spindle oil, china clay grease, lubricating oils of all kinds'. The defendants accordingly levied on the fuel oil or the furnace oil which was thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom33; (1952)54BOMLR808; ILR1953Bom76
ORDER[1] The Additional Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, committed four accused to stand their trial at the Court of Session under Sections 409, 467 and 477A, Penal Code read with Section 34, Penal Code, Accused 1 has come in revision against the order of committal and prays that the order be quashed.[2] The prosecution case was that accused 1, was the godown keeper of a Government godown at Shahpur. Accused 2 was working as an accountant under accused 1. Accused 3 was Government Milling Clerk in the Jai Hind Mills who was looking after the milling of rice, sent to that mill by Government. Accused 4 was a clerk of the mills. The practice followed by Government with regard to the milling of rice was this. Paddy was sent to the mills and after the paddy had been turned into rice it was sent by the mills to the Government godown in carts and the clerk attending to this work in the mills used to write out a despatch note with three duplicates. The original was kept in the mills and the th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom166; (1952)54BOMLR964
[1] Both accused in the case were convicted under ss. 302 and 120B, Penal Code. One of them was also convicted for an offence under s. 404 of the same Code and sentenced to six months' R.I. For the offence under s. 120B both were sentenced to seven years' R.I. and for the offence under s. 302, to death and the case was referred to High Court for confirmation of death sentence.Bavdekar, J.[After setting out the facts and dealing with the evidence in the case his Lordship confirmed the convictions and the sentences passed on accused No. 1 and proceeded:] That accused No. 2 can he convicted of this offence [under Section 411, Penal Code] without our going into the question of misdirections or non-directions in the learned Judge's charge to the jury, is quite clear from Section 376, Criminal P.C. Under that section, when once there is a conviction in respect of an accused person and reference for confirmation of the sentence of death passed upon him is made to us, the whole case is reopene...
Tag this Judgment!