Mumbai Court June 1953 Judgments
The State of Bombay Vs. Nilkanth Shripad Bhave and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom65; (1953)55BOMLR838; ILR1954Bom148
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an application by the State of Bombay to expunge certain remarks made by the Sessions Judge, North Satara, when dealing with a bail application. The remarks that were made by the Sessions Judge were about the learned Magistrate before whom the criminal case was pending, and the Question that has to be considered by this full bench is whether there is any jurisdiction in this Court to entertain this application. This application is neither an appeal nor a criminal revision application. No effective order has been passed by the Sessions Judge which can be complained of by any party, nor is there any finding given by the learned Sessions Judge which can be challenged in this Court, and the question that arises for our consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction first to entertain an application which is neither an appeal nor a revision, and, if it has such jurisdiction, whether it has further the jurisdiction to expunge remarks from the judgment of the low...
Tag this Judgment!Adhargir Chhotegir Gosai Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ280
ORDERChoudhuri, J.1. The applicant Adhargir was convicted under Section 379, Penal Code by the Magistrate Second Class Amarwada, for the theft of a horse belonging to Jawaharlal (P. W. 1) and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Additional District Magistrate, Chhindwara.2. The prosecution case in brief is that a horse belonging to Jawaharlal (P. W. 1) was left for grazing on 10-6-1951. The animal was missing from that date. Lula (P. W. 2), who is a servant of Jawaharlal, searched for the animal for a week. During the search, he saw a dead horse from a distance and thinking it to be the one which was missing he informed his master accordingly. Subsequently in the month of September he found his master's horse with Sawlia in village Bhanaswada and reported to his master. During the investigation the horse was seized from Sawlia on 22-9-1951, vide seizure memo (Exhibit P. 4). Sawlia had informed that he had purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshnarayan Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Indian Textile Syndicate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom91; (1953)55BOMLR857; ILR1954Bom304
Chagla, C.J. 1. A very interesting question relating to the law of insolvency arises in this appeal. The appellant firm was dissolved on 19-12-1951. The respondent company filed a suit against the appellant firm and obtained a decree on 14-11-1952. The appellant firm consists of several partners, but in the suit filed by the respondent company only one partner was served) viz. Bhagwatiprasad, and he appeared in answer to the summons. On 10-12-1952, the respondent company took out an insolvency notice addressed to the firm calling upon the firm to pay the judgment debt within the time specified in that notice. The appellant firm took out a notice of motion on 8-1-1953, to set aside the insolvency notice. The learned Insolvency Judge dismissed the notice of motion) and it is from that order that this appeal is preferred.2. The contention of the respondent company is that it has obtained a decree against the appellant firm, that the insolvency notice is addressed to the appellant firm, th...
Tag this Judgment!Samsherkhan Mohamadkhan Vs. Jafarali Ahmedalli Saiyad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom133; (1953)55BOMLR853; ILR1954Bom237
Chagla, C.J. 1. This petition raises an interesting and Important question as to the proper construction of Section 22, Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, which deals with the jurisdiction of the District judge in election petitions.2. The petitioner stood for the general election of ward No. 4 of the Borsad Municipality which was held on 10-7-1952. Respondent 1 was also a candidate. There were four seats in all, the fourtte seat being a reserved seat, and when the results were declared one Hiralal was found to have obtained 656, one Amritlal was found to have obtained 598 votes, and respondent 1 Jafarali was found to have obtained 433 votes. The petitioner was declared to have secured 428 votes. Therefore, Hiralal, Amritlal and Jafarali, respondent 1 were declared to be duly elected. The petitioner then presented an election petition before the District Judge of Kaira challenging the election on the ground that if a proper scrutiny was held of the votes cast in favour of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!E.H. Ginwalla Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom151; (1953)55BOMLR907; ILR1954Bom231
Ciiagla, C.J.1. The petitioner is the ijardar and mortgagee in possession of the estate of Bhankoda situated in Viramgam taluka and which is a Talukdari Estate. In march 1950 the State of Bombay assumed the management of this estate under Section 44, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Respondent 3 was appointed the manager of the estate under Section 45, and under Section 49 the manager published a notice in the Official Gazette calling upon all persons having claims against the estate under management to notify the same in writing to him as manager within two months from the date of the publication of the notice. Pursuant to this, claimants against the estate presented their claims with the necessary particulars, and among them was also the petitioner.Under Section 52 the manager held an inquiry in respect of the merits of every claim received by him and he prepared a schedule as required by Section 54 & also a scheme of liquidation as required by that section, and submitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Jethalal Nagji Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1953
Reported in: [1954]25ITR207(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Hathi, Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The suit came to be filed under the following circumstances. 2. One Rowji Sojpal entered into a contract with defendant No. 1, the Municipal Corporation of Bombay, for construction of certain sewers and admittedly under that contract a sum of Rs. 14,517-10-0 was due by the Muncipality to Rowji Sojpal on March 31, 1950. On March 20, 1950, Rowji Sojpal on March 31, 1950. On March 20, 1950, Rowji Sojpal assigned the benefit under this contract to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has sued the Muncipality to recover this sum of Rs. 14,517-10-0. The Municipality does not dispute its liability under the contract. Its defence is that it made this payment to the Union of India under a notice served by the Excess Profits Tax Officer on April 29, 1950, and the payment was made on May 5, 1950. The contention of the Municipality is that this payment disch...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairulal Chunilal Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom116; (1953)55BOMLR882; ILR1954Bom104
Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner is a rate payer and a voter of the Amalner Borough Municipality which is opponent 3 to this petition, and he has sought for a writ of 'quo warranto' against opponent 3 contending that the general election held on 2-3-1953, by which the councillors of the Amalner Borough Municipality were elected was null and void and therefore the Municipality has no power or authority to discharge the dutiesunder the Municipal Boroughs Act. Certain reliefs were also sought against the State of Bombay and the Collector of East Khandesh, Jalgaon, who are opponents 1 and 2, but at the very outset Mr. Kotwal stated to the Court that he was not seeking any reliefs against the first two opponents and he would be content with a writ of 'quo warranto' against opponent 3. 2. The councillors of the Amalner Municipality were elected in 1949 for a period of three years, the triennium ending on 15-1-1952. Under Section 25(1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act the term of office of a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›