Mumbai Court November 1955 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.
Mansuri Ibrahim Mohamed Vs. Shetti Kantilal Balabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom276
ORDER1. The short point which arises for decision in this revisional application is whether the petitioner can claim the protection of Section 60(1)(h), Civil P. C. The petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor, pleaded that he was a labourer and as such his wages were not liable to be attached in execution of a decree passed against! him.This plea was rejected by the executing Court. That is why the petitioner has come to this Court and on his behalf Mr. S. N. Patel has argued that the view taken by the learned Judge about the status of the petitioner is clearly inconsistent with the rulings of this Court. I am satis-fied that Mr. Patel's contention is well-founded.2. Section 60(1)(h), civil P. C. exempts from attachment in execution proceedings the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or kind, and the question therefore is whether the wages drawn by the judgment-debtor in the present case can be said to be the wages of a labourer or not. Ordinarily, a labou...
Jagadguru Shri Sankeshwar Karweer Math Vs. Lingangouda Kurtkoti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom343
Gokhale, J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit by the joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Belgaum. The plaintiff is the present Swami of Sankeshwar Karveer Math. The plaintiff's Guru and predecessor-in-title had filed Special Suit No. 219 of 1910 on 20-7-1910 against three defendants. The first defendant in that suit was Pitre Swami. The second defendant in that suit was the defendant in this suit and the present plaintiff was defendant 3 in that suit.That suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff in that suit, the Waikar Swami, was the duly installed Guru of the Sankeshwar Math and, therefore owner of the properties of the Math. Defendant 1 in that suit, Pitre Swanii, contended that he was the duly installed Swami and defendant 2 in that suit was the duly initiated disciple of the said Pitre Swami.Defendant 3 in that suit, who is the present plaintiff, was said to be the duly initiated disciple of the plaintiff, namely Waikar Swami. That suit ende...
S.N. Ranebennur Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom717; (1956)58BOMLR317; 1956CriLJ1310; ILR1956Bom489
Vyas, J.1. (After holding that the evidence in the case established that the accused was in possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known income and the accused had failed to account for it and was, therefore, guilty of the offence under Section 5(2) and after stating that it was not necessary, in the circumstances to go through the evidence regarding specific instances of bribery alleged against the accused the Judgment proceeded:)2. Mr. Purshottam has contended that the sanction granted by the Inspector-General of Police for the prosecution of the appellant was defective. The sanction recited thirteen specific instances in which the appellant was alleged to have accepted bribes or was alleged to have attempted to obtain bribes, and then the material part of the sanction stated:'Whereas, it appears to the Inspector General of Police that the said Shri S.N. Ranebennur has thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a), Prevention of Corrupti...
Ningappa Balappa and ors. Vs. Abashkhan Gouskhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom345
Chainani, J.1. The facts giving rise to these two appeals are briefly these: In Suit No. 336 of 1947 the respondent-plaintiff obtained a decree for partition and separate possession of his share in several agricultural lands. This decree was passed in 1949. It was confirmed in appeal by the High Court, on 22-1-1952. On 5-11-1952, the papers were sent to the Collector under Section 54, Civil P. C. for effecting Partition of the lands.On 11-1-1965, appellants 1 to 11 in First Appeal No. 292 of 1955 made an application (Ex. 88) to the Court. They stated in that application that they were tenants of the suit lands since before the institution of the suit and that they could not, therefore, be evicted from the lands in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They, therefore, prayed that the papers should be called for from the Collector & that an order should be made directing the Collector to deliver only symbolical possession of the lands to the resp...
Soli K. Shroff Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom207
Shah, J.1. This is all application filed by one Soli K. Shroff requesting that externment proceedings started under Section 59, Bombay Police Act, 22 of 1951 at the instance of Huzur Ahmed Khan, Superintendent of Police, C, I. D., Bombay City Police, be stayed till the final hearing and disposal of criminal cases Nos. 331/N/55 and 366/ N/55 filed by the petitioner against certain complainants (who have according to the case given false information as mentioned in the notice issued against the petitioner under Section 59, Bombay Police Act 22 of 1951) for offences under Section 211, I. P. C. and which are now pending before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay.2. Evidently the proceedings are pending before the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, and the proceedings are taken for requiring the petitioner to show cause why an order under Section 59, Bombay Police Act should not be passed against him. The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, is n...
Gopal Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Broach Borough Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR300
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. These six first appeals raise common questions of municipal taxation, under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. We will first deal with First Appeal No. 28 of 1953 which arises out of special civil suit No. 4 of 1951 which was filed by the plaintiffs on April 7, 1951. In that suit the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that certain taxes imposed by the Broach Municipality were illegal. They asked for an injunction restraining the municipality from recovering these taxes and they also asked for a refund of taxes for the year 1950-51 which they had paid under protest and also refund of part of the amount of taxes paid for the year 1949-50. Bills were submitted by the Broach Municipality to the plaintiffs on July 20, 1950, and these bills were for taxes for 1950-51 and for arrears of part of the taxes for the year 1949-50 in respect of properties used for industrial purposes. The plaintiffs paid the amounts claimed under the bills under protest between October 23...
Pandharinath Bhaguji Vs. Dasharath Genu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom572
ORDER1. This is a revisional application by the defendant and on his behalf Mr. Rele contends that the finding of the lower appellate Court that the transaction in dispute is a mortgage is based on no legal evidence at all.It is well settled that a party Invoking the re-visional jurisdiction of this Court is entitled to succeed even on questions of fact if the party is able to establish his contention that the finding of fact marie by the lower appellate Court is really and truly not based on any legal evidence on the record.In the present case. I am satisfied that Mr. Rele has been able to make good his point that the finding of the lower appellate Court which is against him on the question of the adequacy of the price is based on no legal evidence.2. The transaction in dispute took place on 21-6-1920. The land in question is survey No. 203 at Ghodegaon. It admeasures 15 acres and 16 gunthas and is assessed at Rs. 14/-. This land was sold by Dasharath and Tanhabai to Bhaguji the fathe...
State Vs. Manda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom197; 1956CriLJ482
ORDER1. This is a reference made to this court by the learned Sessions Judge Kolaba, torevise an order for maintenance made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murud. Manda the wife made the application on the ground that the applicant who was serving at Bombay had sent her to Dongari where the rest of his family including his brother were living and where the brother did not give her sufficient food and beat her owing to which she left the house. The learned trial Magistrate did not accept the wife's contention that the husband or even the husband's brother illtreated her and his finding was that the wife left the house of the husband because she was not given sufficient food; but the learned Sessions Judge pointed out in his reference that that was not due to the fact that the applicant husband wanted to starve the wife. The husband who was serving at Bombay was earning an income of Rs. 106. He was a member of a joint Hindu family, and misfortune overtook the family beca...
State Vs. Ganpat Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom202; 1956CriLJ486
ORDER1. This is an application for enhancement of the sentence passed against the accused person who has been convicted for a second time upon an offence under Section 66(b), Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.2. The prosecution case was that on 15-12-1954 the accused got down at the Dadar Station from the Borivali local and was arrested and searched in the presence of two panchas and the police found one cycle tube containing 24 drains of liquor tied around the waist of the accused. It was seized under a panchnama. The opponent was then prosecuted.3. His defence was that nothing was found on his person. The police arrested him that morning at Kalina when he was drunk. He was brought down to Dadar and the police foisted a case against him.4. Now, the case against the accused rested upon the evidence of a police constable and a panch Kashinath Mahadeo. Now the criticism which has been made of this evidence is that the panch appears to be a railway license coolie; but that is not an adequate r...
In Re: Mohanlal B. Bajaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom261
1. This is en application for revision from an order dismissing a complaint which has been riled by the applicant for cheating or criminal misappropriation in regard to a radio which the applicant contended was sold to him by the accused opponent for a sum of Rs. 1000/-. Upon receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate appears to have issued notices to the two sides and then dismissed the complaint holding that it was purely a civil matter.2. Now, the finding that it was purely a civil matter necessarily implies that no offence appears to have been committed; but Inasmuch as the learned Magistrate did not take any evidence nor did he direct any preliminary inquiry into the matter by the police it is difficult to understand upon what this finding that there 'was no crime involved, is based.The complainant alleged that there was a sale to him of a wireless set. If it was sold to the complainant then when subsequently the accused did away with it or as a matter of fact even if he deni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »