Mumbai Court February 1953 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.
Vijayakumar Motilal Hirakanwalla Vs. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1953
Reported in: [1954]24CompCas49(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 71,000 on a contract of fire insurance on certain cotton bales which were destroyed by fire at Lasoor on March 23, 1952. 2. The plaintiff if the owner of various business carried on in the names and style of Narandas Chunilal and Chunilal Motilal including that of a cotton ginning and pressing factory at Lasoor in Hyderabad State. The business of the factory is carried on in the name of Narandas Chunilal. The head office of the plaintiff is at Jalna in Hyderabad State. The business were managed by the plaintiff's adoptive mother Tarabai till her death in April, 1952. After her death these business are being managed by the plaintiff's natural mother Mahabalkumari. The plaintiff also owns a textile mill at Gadag. When the suit was filed the plaintiff was a minor. He attained majority before the suit came on for hearing and the suit was thereafter continued by him. The defendants are an insurance company incorporated in New Zealand and ha...
Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom129; (1953)55BOMLR746; ILR1953Bom1157
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This revisional application raises a short but important question as to the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to entertain a suit against the Union of India representing the B. B. & C. I. Railway having its head office at Bombay. The suit has been filed to recover Rs. 844-7-0 as the value of certain goods. The plaintiffs' case is that these goods were sent by the plaintiff-company from Agra Fort to Bikaner to be carried over by the B. B. & C. I. Railway. In the process of transport, the full consignment was damaged and was not delivered to the consignee. The value of the goods short-delivered is claimed by the plaintiffs as damages from the Union of India. 2. For the defendant a preliminary point of jurisdiction was raised. It was urged on their behalf that, since the cause of action had accrued wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, it was not competent to that Court to entertain the present suit. This plea was met by the p...
Ranchhod Ramnarayan Vs. Manubai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom153; (1953)55BOMLR890; ILR1954Bom194
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises a short and interesting question under Section 53A, T. P. Act. The question is whether a reversioner can be said to be a person claiming under the widow after whose death he succeeds by reversion. This question has been answered differently by the Courts below. The learned trial Judge held that the reversioner could not be said to be a person claiming under the widow whereas the lower appellate Court has taken a contrary view.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are very few and there is no dispute about them. The property in suit is a house situated in Ka-soda. This house originally belonged to Bhila Supdu. Bhila died in 1940 leaving behind him his widow Chhababai and two sisters Banabai and Manubai. His widow Chhababai entered into a contract of sale in regard to this house for Rs. 500 on 5-11-1944. The contract was reduced to writing, an earnest of Rs. 200 was received by Chhababai and the intending purchaser entered into possession of ...
Vijayakumar Motilal Vs. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom347; (1954)56BOMLR341
1. This is a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 71,000 on a contract of fire insurance on certain cotton bales which were destroyed by fire at Lasoor on 23-4-1952.2. The plaintiff is the owner of various businesses carried on in the names and style of Narandas Chunilal and Chunilal Motilal including that of a cotton ginning and pressing factory at Lasoor in Hyderabad State. The business of the factory is carried on in the name of Narandas Chunilal. The Head Office of the plaintiff is at Jalna in Hyderabad State.The businesses were managed by the plaintiff's adoptive mother Tarabai till her death in April 1952. After her death these businesses are being managed by the plaintiff's natural mother Mahabalkumari. The plaintiff also owns a textile mill at Gadag.When the suit was filed the plaintiff was a minor. He attained majority before the suit came on for hearing and the suit was thereafter continued by him.The defendants are an insurance company incorporated in New Zealand and have a branch o...
Krishnaji Ramchandra Vs. Raghunath Shankar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom125; (1953)55BOMLR741; ILR1954Bom187
1. These two appeals arise respectively from suits Nos. 19 and 117 of 1943 filed by the plaintiff appellant to recover from defendants l and 2 and their tenants possession of the suit property. The facts leading up to the suits are shortly these.2. The property in dispute in suit No. 79. is survey No. 271 and a vacant house-site. The property in dispute in suit No. 117 consists of four fields. The fields bear survey Nos. 83/2 & 84 of Kuroli, survey No. 844/2 of Mahim and survey No. 17 of Bhandi-Shegaon. These properties originally belonged to the adoptive father of the plaintiff. There was a third suit (No. 633 of 1942) and the property in dispute in that suit consisted of two fields bearing survey Nos. 270 and 295. The plaintiff's case was that these properties belonged to Ramchandra who adopted the plaintiff in 1930 and died on 24-1-1931. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he obtained possession of these lands as the adopted sort of Ramchandra, but in October 1936 Shankar, the? dec...
Cantonment Board, Poona Vs. Western India theatres Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom261; (1954)56BOMLR45; ILR1954Bom647
Bavdekar, J.1. These two appeals arise from two companion suits filed by the plaintiffs who are lessees of certain theatres situated within the limits of Poona and of two theatres known as West-End and Capitol situated within the limits of Poona Cantonment.2. The question which comes up for determination in these two appeals is with regard to the legality of the tax which is levied by the two bodies, the Poona Municipality and the Cantonment Board of Poona, upon shows which are given at the Cinema Theatres situated within their local limits. It appears from the evidence that in the year 1920 the City Municipality was desirous of levying the tax which subsequently came to be known by the rules framed by the Municipality as a theatre tax. The tax was not, however, a tax which could be levied by the Municipality under the power conferred upon it under Section 59, Sub-section (1), Clauses (i) to (x). It was a tax which could be levied by the Municipality if at all under the provisions of S...
Petro Antonio Luciano Sequeira and anr. Vs. Goolbai Nadirshaw and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom81; (1953)55BOMLR739; ILR1953Bom1153
ORDER1. A very interesting question arises in this revision application with regard to the right, of a mortgagee under an English mort-.gage to enforce his right of possession against the mortgagor. It appears that the petitioners mortgaged a property by an English mortgage to secure a sum of Rs. 33,000 and the mortgage was transferred to the opponents on 26-1-1949. There was a covenant in the mortgage deed that on the failure on the part of the mortgagors to pay interest as stipulated and to pay the mortgage amount on 26-1-1950, the mortgagees would be entitled to enter into possession.Admittedly the petitioners committed default both in respect of payment of interest and the payment of principal. Thereupon the opponents gave notice to the petitioners to attorn to' them as tenants. The petitioners refused to do so and thereupon the opponents took out proceedings under Chap, VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act to eject. An order for ejectment was passed by the Small Causes Cou...
Sm. Nirmalabai Misal Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1586
ORDERHemeon, j.1. The applicant Nirmalabai was charged under Section 420 and, alternatively, under Section 406, Penal Code, by the First Class Magistrate, Nagpur, in respect of gold ornaments delivered to her on 1.12.1949 by Bhogilal (P.W. 4) at his shop in Sitabuldi, Nagpur. Her application for quashing the charges was dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur; and she has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, to the effect that the applicant had on 1.12.1949 taken the ornaments, which were worth about Rs. 2,415/-, on approval from Bhogilal's salesman V.G. Deshmukh (P.W. 3) and promised to return them in the evening. She failed to do so, however, or to pay for them; and a report 'vide' Ex. P-2 was made to the police on 21.7.1950, She was thereafter, challaned, and in examination denied, that she had taken any ornaments from Bhogilal's shop on 1.12.1949.3. V.G. Deshmukh's description of the transaction was in the following ter...
Sujaniram Daryaosingh Vs. Lal Shyamshah and Lal Bhagwan Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1953
Reported in: 1956CriLJ256
ORDER1. This is an application by Sujaniram under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, order or direction quashing the order, dated 16-11-1952, passed by the Election Tribunal, RaJ-nandgaon (respondent 4), and for a writ prohibiting the Election Commission of India, New Delhi (respondent 5) from holding a fresh election.2. Chauki Constituency in the district of Durg has one seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The candidates for election in 1951 were the petitioners Sujaniram, Lal Shyamshah (respondent 1) and Prayagsingh (respondent 2). They are members of the Scheduled Tribes,3. A nomination paper of a candidate for the reserved seat has to be accompanied by a declaration that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribes for which the seat has been reserved. He has also to specify the particular tribe of which he is a member and also the area in relation to which such tribe is one of the Scheduled Tribes.The declaration has to be verified by a Magistrate under E. 6. Representation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›