Mumbai Court April 1954 Judgments
In Re: K.L. Gauba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom478; (1954)56BOMLR838; ILR1955Bom11
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an application under our disciplinary jurisdiction against Mr. K.L. Gauba. It came to the notice of this Court that Mr. Gauba, who is an advocate of this Court, had entered Into an agreement with his client, one Amarnath Bhardwaj, which appeared to be champertous and this Court took the view that the circumstances under which the said agreement had been entered into and the terms of the agreement itself called for an investigation under the disciplinary jurisdiction, and so it was decided to refer this case to the Bar Council.Accordingly, on May 1, 1953, the learned Chief Justice appointed three members of the Bar Council to constitute a Tribunal under S. 11 of the Bar Councils Act for inquiring into this case. Notice of the intended inquiry was served on Mr. Gauba in due course. He appeared before the Bar Council Tribunal, gave his explanation on July 10 and filed an additional statement on August 6, 1953. The matter was then heard by the Members of the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswantsinghji Fathehsinghji Thakore Vs. Kesuba Harisinh Dipsinhji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom108; (1954)56BOMLR819; 1955CriLJ357; ILR1955Bom6
ORDER1. Thakore Shri Jaswantsinghji Fate-singhji (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was a Ruler of an Indian State known as Kho-dal. On 26-5-1948, the Khodal State merged with the Union of India and the territory thereof now forms part of the Bombay State. The petitioner claims that he is recognised under Article 362 of the Constitution of India as a Ruler.Opponents Nos. l and 2 claiming, respectively, to be the wife and son of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C. in the Court of the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj, for an order that they be awarded proper maintenance from the petitioner.It was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate that he was a 'Ruler' within the meaning of the Constitution of India, and the proceedings taken against him in the Court of the Resident Magistrate were in the absence of sanction of the Central Government incompetent. In support of that contention reliance was placed upo...
Tag this Judgment!Girdharlal Popatlal Shah and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Bom32; (1955)57BOMLR952; 1956CriLJ206; ILR1955Bom932
Chainani, J.1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951 (LVI. of 1951) against the order of forfeiture passed by the State Government on 7-1-1954, forfeiting a book entitled 'Dampatya Rahasya' published in Gu]arati by Messrs. Ellis and Martyn, a firm doing business in Bombay. It appears from the petition that a book bearing the title 'Mysteries of Marriage' was published in 1943 in English. The book which has been forfeited is a translation of the English book and is said to have been brought out in March 1953. Both the English and Gujarati books give detailed descriptions of 40 coital postures, that is positions which may be adopted during the act of sexual intercourse.At the end of each book there are coloured pictures showing the different postures. Each picture shows a naked man and a naked woman joined together for the purpose of sexual intercourse. By the side of each picture, there is a diagram which shows the position of the male org...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod C. Bhat Vs. Kanwar Raj Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom518; (1954)56BOMLR873
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the right of the Custodian of evacuee property to terminate a lease granted by him in respect of evacuee property, and also the right of the Custodian to give certain directions under Section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.On 12-9-1951, Messrs. Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., Ltd., were declared to be evacuees and their property vested in the Custodian. On 30-8-1952, the Custodian entered into an agreement of lease with the petitioners in respect of some of the properties of Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., Ltd., which had been declared to be evacuee properties, and the properties in respect of which the lease was executed were three mills with bungalows and chawls attached thereto at Ambernath, and a Bobbin Factory, and the agreement of lease provided that the petitioners should have a lease of these properties for a period of five years.It was provided that on the execution of the agreement the lessees shall d...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Prabhavati Sumatilal Dholidas Vs. Sumatilal Dholidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom546; (1954)56BOMLR815; ILR1955Bom1
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference which has been made to us by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, arises out of an application made by a wife for maintenance against her husband under s. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was for the maintenance of herself, a daughter and a son. The learned Magistrate who heard the application was of the opinion that on merits a sum of Rs. 100 should be awarded to the wife and Bs. 70 to the two children. But he felt bound by the decision of this Court reported in -- 'Palmerino v. Falme-rino : AIR1927Bom46 and therefore he awarded a sum of Rs. 100 in respect of all the three. When the matter came before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he felt that the decision of this Court should be reconsidered in view of the fact that the other High Courts had taken a contrary view. He thereupon made this reference.2. Now, Mr. Thakor for the husband has raised a preliminary point that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have fol...
Tag this Judgment!Jugalkishore Saraf Vs. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom77; (1954)56BOMLR905; ILR1954Bom1004
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whetheran equitable assignee of a decree passed against a debtor can maintain an insolvency notice against him.2. The decree was passed in favour of Habib & Sons on 15-12-1949, and there was an assignment in favour of the respondents on 7-2-1949. The respondents have obtained leave under Order 21, Rule 16, as the assignee of the decree to execute the decree. Therefore, by reason of that leave they are in the same position as the decree-holders, viz.; Habib & Sons, and 'after they had obtained leave the respondents took out an insolvency notice on 17-12-1953. The judgment-debtor, the appellant, took out a notice of motion to set aside the insolvency notice. Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissed that notice of motion and this appeal is against that order.3. Now, what is urged by Mr. Banaji is that the creditor contemplated in Section 9(1), Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, as amended by Bombay Act 15 of 1939 is only a decree-holder and not...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Sadik Gulam Saheb Patil Vs. HusseIn Miya Gulam Saheb Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom548; (1954)56BOMLR902; ILR1954Bom1385
Chagla, C.J. 1. A partition decree was passed on 31-3-1945, and defendant No. 1 filed an appeal. Ultimately the District Court by its judgment dated 18-10-1947, modified the decree of the trial Court. Defendant No. 6 then filed two darkhasts-- one against defendant No. 1 and the other against defendant No. 2, and the contention raised by the judgment-debtors was that the judgment-debt was extinguished and therefore a darkhast could not be presented in respect of that judgment-debt. Now, the last date for making an application for adjustment of debts was 31-7-1947, and what is urged is that the appeal which was pending before the District Court was liable to be transferred under Section 19 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and the subject-matter of the appeal should have beendealt with by the provisions of that Act, and inasmuch as the appeal was not transferred and inasmuch as the creditor did not make any application for adjustment of the debt by 31-7-1947, the judgment-de...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Vs. Krishnadas Nima
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1084
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh against the order of acquittal of the respondent Krishnadas Nima passed by the Judge Magistrate, Harda, in Cr. Case No. 104 of 1952.2. The respondent is manager of an oil-mill at Harda. He was prosecuted Under Section 92, Factories Act on a complaint made by Shri B. V. Desai, Inspector of Factories for the following contraventions of the provisions of the Act:(i) For having failed to cover dangerous part of the machine as provided Under Section 21, Factories Act.(ii) For failing to maintain a medicine box as required by Rule 65, and(iii) For failing to maintain leave with Salary Register as required by Rule 91.The contraventions were detected on 3-3-1952.3. The prosecution was sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad, Under Section 105(1), Factories Act on 27-5-1952 and the complaint was forwarded to Shri G. S. Pawar, Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad, for disposal according to law. On 27-6-1952 the case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›