Mumbai Court January 1954 Judgments
Ghanairam Pachhuram Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1367
ORDER1. This is an application for the grant of a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. The applicant who was a shunting driver on the Central Railway was prosecuted for an offence under Section 101 of the Railways Act on the allegation that he had negligently driven his shunting engine in excess of the prescribed speed limit and caused collision with two other engines, resulting in damaging the railway property. He was convicted of the offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/-. His appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh. Thereupon he preferred an application for revision before this Court which was dismissed by Hemeon J.3. The applicant wants a certificate from us under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution so that he can prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court. The grounds on. which the certificate is sought. are two. In the first place, it is said that the sanction of the Central Government under Section 197, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dagadu Balu Vs. Namdeo Rakhmaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom152; (1954)56BOMLR513; ILR1954Bom1069
Chagla, C.J.1. This second appeal raises a question as to the interpretation of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. Although the Act is a very short one, all questions of interpretation of that Act usually raise serious difficulties. Some Judges have observed that the provisions of the Act are obscure, and more charitable minded Judges have said that the drafting of the Act is not very happy.2. The question that arises for our consideration arises on these facts. Rakhmaji and Krishna were two brothers who constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family. Krishnaji died on 25-9-1945, leaving a widow who is defendant No. 2 and a daughter who is defendant No. 3, and defendant No. 1 is the son of Rakhmaji.On 3-9-1946, defendant No. 2 sold her interest in the joint family property to the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000, and the plaintiff filed the suit from which this appeal arises for partition. The question that has been debated before us is whether under the provisions of the Hindu Wom...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Pandurang Pitale Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom271; (1954)56BOMLR966
ORDER1. This is a petition for an appropriatewrit, direction or order preventing the State ofBombay from enforcing a requisition order dated31-10-1953. 2. The petitioner alleges that since the year 1941 he has been the tenant of flat No. 8 on thethird floor of Neelain Mansion, Tribhowan Road, Bombay. In October 1950 one A.G. Pandit, a close friend of the petitioner's father, died in the said flat. Thereafter on 18-4-1952, Government issued a notice to show cause why the property should not be requisitioned under Section 5 or Section 6(4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petitioner showed cause against the notice and the Mehtaji of the landlord also submitted before the Accommodation Officer that the petitioner was his tenant. Nonetheless by the requisition order dated 31-10-1953, Government made a declaration that the premises had become vacant in the month of October 1950 and proceeded to requisition the premises.3. Now, the only ground on which this petitionhas been ...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao K. Pai Vs. Dalsukh M. Pancholi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom89; (1954)56BOMLR496
Chagla, C.J. 1. The plaintiff filed a summary suit in this Court against the defendant on 8-4-1952. On 6-5-1952, the defendant made an application under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act to the Tribunal in Delhi who is the Senior Sub-Judge there.On 30-9-1953, the plaintiff took out a summons for judgment and in his affidavit in reply the defendant contended that inasmuch as he had made an application under Section 5, the suit pending before the Court was liable to be stayed under Section 15(a). Mr. Justice Tendolkar gave unconditional leave to the defendant to defend for the purpose of having the following issue determined:'Whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant is 'a displaced person' and whether the claim in suit is 'a debt' within the meaning of those words in the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act?'The learned Judge also expressed an opinion that inasmuch as there were conflicting decisions of single Judges on this quest...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchand Tillumal Vs. Khubchand Daswani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom138; (1954)56BOMLR828; ILR1954Bom1319
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal raises a short question under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, LXX of 1951. The appellant made an application before the tribunal appointed under this Act for the adjustment of his debts. His application has been rejected by the tribunal on the ground that it is not competent. It is common ground that both the applicant and the opponent are displaced persons within the meaning of the Act. It is also common ground that the applicant is a debtor of the opponent and that the debt was contracted subsequent to August 15, 1947. The applicant alleged that he was entitled to have this debt adjusted on the ground that it was a debt within the meaning of Section 2(6)(c) of the Act, whereas the opponent's contention was that before the applicant could apply for the adjustment of his debts, he must show that his debt falls within Section 2(6)(a) of the Act. It is conceded that the debt does not fall within Section 2(6)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Oil Cakes Traders Vs. Parshottam Narayandas Bagulia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom491; (1954)56BOMLR575; ILR1954Bom1137
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the propert Court. By his plaint the plaintiff had claimed to recover Rs. 10,800 from the defendants on the ground that there was a valid contract between the parties and that the defendants had failed to perform their part of the contract. In other words, it is an action for damages for breach of contract. The defendants reside at Kanpur, outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge at Baroda, and the plaintiff conceded that the Civil Judge in whose Court he filed the plaint would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the provisions of Section 20, Sub-sections (a) and (b), of the Code of Civil Procedure.He, however, alleged that the cause of action had accrued partly within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge and so the suit as filed before him would be competent under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Vimlabai D. Vashishtha Vs. General Assurance Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom278; (1954)56BOMLR1013
1. This is a notice of motion which raises a question of law of great practical importance to insurance companies who insure third party risks in respect of motor vehicles. 2. Under Section 96, Motor Vehicles Act, Sub-section (1) casts a duty upon such insurers to satisfy judgments passed against the insured in respect of third party risk. Sub-section (2) of that section provides, however, that such liability shall not attach to the insurer unless before or after the commencement of the proceedings in which a judgment is obtained a notice has been given to the insurer through the Court of the bringing of the proceedings, This Sub-section further provides that an insurer on whom notice has been served shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action only on any of the grounds therein enumerated. 3. Now, in the present case the suit is filed by the mother of a young lady, by the name of Prabha who .received serious injuries by reason of a motor accident and ultimatel...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1479
ORDER1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us (Mudholkar J.) for consideration of the question as to whether a Court is entitled to take judicial notice of a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette,2. It is argued on behalf of the State that a notification published in a Gazette is a part of the law of the land and that under Section 57(1), Evidence Act, a Court is bound to take judicial notice thereof.3. The term 'law' has been defined thus la Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution : 'law' includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.but that definition is only for the purpose of Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution. Again the term 'existing law' has been defined thus in Article 366(10) of the Constitution : 'existing law' means any law, Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulati...
Tag this Judgment!Karamsey Kanji Vs. Velji Virji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR619
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting and important question arises on this revision application, and I have received considerable assistance from the able arguments both of Mr. Kapadia and of Mr. Sakhardande. The facts briefly are that the landlord constructed a building in December 1946 and he let out a room on the 2nd floor of that building immediately thereafter at a rent of Rs. 28. In March 1949 the tenant applied to the learned Civil Judge at Thana for fixation of standard rent. The learned Judge dismissed that application holding that Us. 28 was the proper rent. There was an appeal to the District Court, and the learned District Judge on April 17, 1951, held that the standard rent was Rs. 23-12-0. The landlord then filed a suit in the Small Causes Court for arrears of rent against the tenant and the arrears claimed were from January 1, 1951, to December 81, 1951. The landlord's .contention was that he was entitled to the contractual rent of Rs. 28 for the months of January, Feb...
Tag this Judgment!Khushalchand Mohanlal Marwadi Vs. Dada Bhika Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR571
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioners filed an application under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act on July 14, 194.7, in respect of a judgment debt. Both the Courts below have held that the judgment debt was barred by limitation and therefore the application was not maintainable.2. Now, the decree out of which the judgment debt arises was passed on June 30, 1982. It was a decree against an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the decree-holder filed a darkhast, being darkhast No. 45 of 1941, in, respect of four lands of the judgment-debtor. This darkhast was transferred by the executing Court to the Collector for execution. Under Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act the power of the executing Court to execute a decree against an agriculturist is a limited power and the only power is to direct the Collector to take possession, for any period not exceeding seven years, of any such property of the judgment-debtor to the pos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »