Mumbai Court July 1954 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.
Damodar Krishna Kamli Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom61; (1954)56BOMLR1021; 1955CriLJ181
Gajendkagadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Thana, convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 165-A, Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one day and to pay a line of Rs. 100, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The charge against the appellant was that on or about 30-7-1952, at Thana he abetted Mr. Deshmukh, Deputy Chitnis, of Thana, who was a public servant, in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code inasmuch as he offered Rs. 20 to the said Mr. Deshmukh, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official function favour or disfavour to him or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to him with the Collector and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 165-A, Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is very simple, On 30-7-1952, the appel...
Jayantilal Keshavlal Gajjar Vs. Kantilal Jesingbhai Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom170; (1954)56BOMLR1028; ILR1955Bom236
1. On 27-2-1946, one Mohanlal Lallubhai filed Application No. 5 of 1946 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ahmedabad, in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, for adjudicating one Gordhandas Suthar an insolvent. On 28-2-1946, the Insolvency Court appointed an Interim receiver, of the estate of Gordhandas Suthar. An order adjudicating Gordhandas Suthar was passed on 29-10-1946, end one Dalai, a pleader, was appointed Receiver in Insolvency of his property by the same order. It appears that the insolvent had certain property in British India as it then was. He was also owner of S. N. 291 of the village of Adivad in the Baroda State, and of a factory for manufacture of bobbins standing thereon.One Gajjar who was a cousin of the insolvent filed on 20-2-1946, Suit No. 118 of 1945-46 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Kalol for a money decree and obtained on 3-3-1946, an order for attachment before judgment of S. No. 291 and the bobbin factory standing thereon. It ...
K.P. Mohmed Vs. Shapur A. Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom207; (1954)56BOMLR1169; ILR1955Bom168
ORDER1. The opponent filed an application under Chap. VII of the Small Cause Courts Act for ejecting the petitioner on the ground that he was his licensee and the licence had been terminated. The petitioner filed his statement of defence to that application on 9-11-1953. On 6-1-1954, the petitioner applied under Section 47, Small Cause Courts Act, to enable him to file a suit in the higher Court on his title. This application was refused by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, apparently on the ground that the amending Act applied and, therefore the application of the petitioner was out of time. Now, under Section 47 as it stood before the amendment, it was open to an occupant to make an application under that section at any time, and the authorities have taken the view that he could make an application even after the order of ejectment was made, becauseit was thought that the proceedings under Chap. VII continued even after the making of the ejectment order.Now, the Legislature...
State of Bombay Vs. Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom1; (1954)56BOMLR1084; ILR1955Bom203
Chagla, C.J.1. Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar and Mr. Justice Vyas, while hearing a second appeal, have referred a certain question to this Pull Bench and the question conies to be referred under the following circumstances.2. It appears that Government let out six lauds bearing various survey numbers in the village of Mukharaba to the plaintiff in the suit from which the second appeal arises. The lease was a temporary lease for three years and it was for the period 1940 to 1943. On 29-5-1943, the plaintiff applied to the Collector to grant him a permanent occupancy lease, and on 15-6-1943, the District Deputy Collector passed an order making a grant of a lease on occupancy tenure with certain conditions attached to that case, and the conditions were that it was to be on the old impartible tenure on the term of raising foodgrains till the completion of the war and on certain other conditions with which we are not concerned.On 21-7-1943, the Mamlatdar gave a written permission to the plaint...
The State Vs. Sahebrao Govindrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom549; (1954)56BOMLR980; ILR1955Bom159
Chagla, C.J.1. References Nos. 7 to 17 have been made to us by the learned Additional Special Judge, Poona, and the learned Additional Special Judge has taken the view in these references that the order of the learned Magistrate holding that he had no jurisdiction to try a case where a public servant was charged under Section 409, Penal Code, was not a proper order and it should be set aside and the case should be referred back to the learned Magistrate for trial. We have also a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, where he has taken the view that a committal order passed by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction and it should be quashed inasmuch as the Magistrate has dealt with a case against a public servant under Section 409 when he had no jurisdiction to do so.2. The question that arises on these references is whether in view of Act 2 of 1947, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 46 of 1952, it is open to the State t...
Prithviraj Chunilal Sand Vs. Hari Ganesh Parkhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR1076
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings and it raises a very short question under the Tenancy Act.2. In Civil Suit No 47 of 1946 a decree for eviction was passed in favour of the landlord. The landlord had alleged that the tenant was in possession of the land for some years before the institution of this suit and that his tenancy had been duly determined on April 15, 1942, or 1943. He, therefore, claimed possession of the property and mesne profits for three years before the date of suit and future mesne profits, The civilsuit was instituted on October 16, 1946, The earlier Tenancy Act of 1989 was extended to Ahmednagar on November 8, 1946. On July 31, 1947, the trial Court decreed the landlord's claim. The landlord was authorised to take possession of the land from the defendant and he was given a decree for Rs. 140 for past mesne profits and an order for inquiry into the future mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12, was also made. Against this decree the tena...
Maharana Jaywantsinhji Ranmalsinhji Thakore Saheb of Sanand Vs. the St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1954
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR1054
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a talukdar of Sanand and Koth Estate and he requires by this petition that the Collector of Ahmedabad where his villages are situated should give him necessary assistance in recovering the local fund cess from his tenants as provided by the Bombay Land Revenue Code. This petition affects the lands leased to 53 tenants and we have before us the kabulayat executed by these tenants and the kabulayat provided for payment by the tenant of a certain amount as darbari haq which is the same as rent, and also whatever local fund cess which the landlord would be liable to pay. It appears that the petitioner was recovering from his tenants both the rent and this local fund cess, but in 1954 when the petitioner attempted to recover the local fund cess from his tenants, the tenants refused to pay this cess on the ground that they had been instructed by the talatis and other officers of the State of Bombay that they were not liable to pay to the petitioner this...
Lomeshprasad Hariprasad Desai Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom159; (1954)56BOMLR1107; ILR1955Bom146
Chagla, C.J.1. The election for councillors to the Baroda Borough Municipality was held on 17-2-1954. The nominations for this election had to be filed by 19-1-1954. Opponent No. 2 filed his nomination on that day. The scrutiny of nomination papers was held on January 20. The petitioner objected to the nomination of opponent No. 2, but his objection was overruled. The election took place and he was declared elected to one of the seats for Ward No. 3. The results of the election were declared on 19-2-1954. The petitioner who is a voter and was also a candidate for election has filed his petition challenging the election of opponent No. 2 on the ground that he was disqualified as a councillor by reason of the fact that he was in the employ of the Municipality. The petitioner first approached the Collector and the Collector upheld the contention of the petitioner and set aside the election of opponent No. 2. Government then intervened and set aside the order of the Collector, and it is re...
Gangadharrao Narayanrao Muzumdar and ors. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom28; (1954)56BOMLR1062; ILR1955Bom127
Chagla, C.J.1. These are several petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Bombay Personal inams Abolition Act, 1952, being Act 42 of 1953. The 30 petitioners are inamdars of various inams and the exemption from land revenue in their case is below Rs. 5,000. In petition No. 404 of 1954 the exemption from land revenue in his case exceeds Rs. 5,000. Then there is one inferior holder who holds from the inamdar; that is petition No. 399; and in seven petitions NOS. 632, 846, 847, 921, 023 and 933 the petitioners are alienees from Inamdars and they have purchased the right to receive land revenue from inferior holders. There is one petition No. 1166 where the inamdar is the inamdar of wanta lands.2. Turning first to the Act which is challenged, it applies to inamdars, inam villages and personal inams, and we have the definition of an 'inamdar' in Section 2(1)(c) which defines an inamdar as a holder of a personal inam and includes any person lawfully holding under or through him. In...
The Bank of Ind Ia, Ltd. Vs. Rustom Fakirji Cowasjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR850
Desai J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts and the contentions of the parties, proceeded.] A number of issues were raised on behalf of the defendant. Although none of them have been given up, it is clear that the case of estoppel pleaded in the original written statement has lost its importance since the defendant has not been examined and there is no evidence on which that plea can be seriously supported. The principal questions that arise for my determination are those relating to jurisdiction, consequences of non-presentment of the promissory note for payment and the question whether the defendant has been discharged from his liability as guarantor by any act or omission or conduct of the plaintiffs bank.2. It was argued that a part of the plaintiffs' cause of action in this suit arose out side the jurisdiction of this Court, and since no leave had been obtained under Clause XII of the Letters Patent for filing this suit, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›