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.
Ramchand Kundanmal Vs. Sardarsingh Mohansingh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom241; (1956)58BOMLR213; ILR1956Bom369
ORDER1. This revisional application raised a short question under Ss. 14 and 15 of the B. A. D. R. Act. The question arises in this way. Tile petitioner obtained a decree against the opponents in suit No. 170 of 1943 for Rs. 1,200/-. It was a decree on mortgage. The decree was put in execution and a darkhast was filed. This darkhast was transferred to the B. A. D. R. Act Court under s. 19 and it was then numbered as Application No. 21000 of 1947. It would ap-pear that in this proceeding the debtor pleaded a subsequent adjustment as a result of which only Rs. 200/- were due from him to the decree-holders.The debtor also applied for the adjustment of his debts and his application was numbered 14472 of 1947. The two applications were then consolidated and were fixed for hearing on 8-8-1951. On this date the debtor No. 1 was examined, but creditor No. 1 was absent. In the result the learned judge dismissed the creditor's application.Ultimately on 25-9-1851 an award was passed and in this a...
Ganesh Laxman Vs. Raosaheb Premchand Ichharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom249
ORDER1. This revisional application raises a short question as to the effect of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 6, Sub-rule (2). The petitioners have obtained a decree against the opponent for Rs. 1,18,000/- and odd in Civil Suit No, 60 of 1950. Against this decree the opponent has-preferred an appeal No. 439 of 1952 in this Court.Since the appellant did not apply for and obtain an order of stay, the petitioners proceeded to execute the decree by filing darkhast No. 5 of 1952. In these proceedings, immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor consisting of lands & houses were attached. It was at this stage that; the opponent moved the executing Court under Order 41, Rule 6, Sub-rule (2) for stay and the learned Judge made an order staying the execution of the decree until the decision of the appeal pending in this Court.This order was passed on 28-10-1953. Thereafter the petitioners applied for a review of this order before the learned Judge on two grounds. They all...
The State Vs. Ardeshir B. Cursetji and Sons, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR365
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, acquitting the respondent company who were charged with having committed an offence under regulation 5 read with regulations 50 and 51 of the Indian Dock Labourers Regulations, 1948, framed under Section 5 of the Indian Dock Labourers Act, 1934.2. A short but an interesting question which has arisen in this ease is one of construction of regulations 50 and 51 of the Indian Dock Labourers Regulations, 1948, and the point which requires our decision is whether the use of a hatch, which is covered with wooden boards, for the purpose of collecting and arranging the cargo thereon, before the cargo is hoisted by the lifting machinery for being discharged out of the ship, or for the purpose of lowering the cargo thereon, after the cargo is brought into the ship by the lifting machinery for being loaded in the hold, is a 'use for the passage of goods or for trimming' within t...
Harswarup Khannamal and ors. Vs. Nandram Shriram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom656; (1956)58BOMLR288; ILR1956Bom405
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather important question arises in this appeal as to the effect to be given to the provisions of Section 29A (Rent Act.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by three plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was the tenant of the first defendant. The property was then purchased from the first defendant by the second defendant sometime in 1949 and the property was subsequently purchased from the second defendant by the third defendant. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 contended that they were the lawful sub-tenants of the first plaintiff. A notice to quit was given by the landlord on 6-12-1947 and a suit was filed in the Small Cause Court by thelandlord on 29-4-1948. to eject the first plaintiff. To this suit he also made plaintiffs 2 and 3 parties alleging that they were trespassers and had no right to be on the premises. The Small Cause Court raised various issues in that suit) and one issue which it decided and with which we are concerned is that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not...
Mahamad Jamsher Tadvi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom186; 1956CriLJ392
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by accused Nos. 2, 3, 8, 14 and 15 who were tried with ten other persons in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1955 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, for offences under Sections 395, 457, and 397, Penal Code, and under Section 19(f), Arms Act.The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the case with the aid of Assessors. The Assessors were of the view that the appellants and certain other persons were guilty of an offence under Section 395 read with Section 457, Penal Code. They were also of the view that the 8th accused, who is the third appellant before us, was guilty of an offence under Section 19(f), Arms Act.The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of an offence under Section 395 read Section 457, Penal Code. He further convicted the 8th accused, who is the third appellant, of an offence under Section 397, Penal Code, and also under Section 19(f), Arms Act. He sentenced the appellants to various terms of Imprisonment. ...
Someshchandra Manilall Nanavati Vs. Jivanlal C. Chinai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom190
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the first respondent is entitled to continue as a nominated director of the National Art Silk Mills Ltd. This is a Private limited company which was incorporated on 10-1-1938 with a capital of 3,000 ordinary shares and 2,000 preference shares of the face value of Rs. 100/- each. The first four directors were the plaintiff, the first defendant the second defendant and Chandulal B. Nanavati whose widow is the third defendant.In the first allotment of shares which was on 8-3-1938, 250 ordinary shares were allotted to the first defendant. In the second allotment which was on 8-6-1938, 85 ordinary shares were allotted to the first defendant. In the third allotment which was on 28-4-1941, 500 ordinary and 500 preference shares were allotted to the first defendant.On 6-8-1953 the first defendant transferred cut of the ordinary shares first allotted to him, 50 to his grandson Mahesh, 50 to another grandson Madhukar and 50 to hi...
State Vs. Shrirang Krishna Gholap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom198; 1956CriLJ483
Vyas, J. 1. The appellant Shrirang Krishna Gholap has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, and he has been sentenced to suffer transportation for life. This is an appeal against that order of conviction and sentence.2. The facts of the case as contended by the prosecution may shortly be stated. The deceased woman in this case was one Shantabai. The prosecution says that she had been living with one Maruti for two or two and half years. Some six months before the date of this incident the appellant was introduced to the said Maruti by Shantabai. The reason for the introduction was that the appellant desired to board et the place of Maruti and Shantabai. Maruti agreed to the proposal with the result that the appellant was permitted to board at the place where Maruti and Shantabai were residing! together. About a month after the appellant started boarding with Maruti and Shantabai, Maruti went to his native plac...
State Vs. Santappa Mother Kasawwa Metri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom217; 1956CriLJ487
1. The accused Santappa was charged before the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mudhol, with having committed an offence under Section 19(f), Indian Arms Act. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused. Against that order of acquittal the State of Bombay has preferred an appeal to this Court. 2. It was the case for the prosecution that on 29-5-1953, Sub-Inspector Hasabi went to the village of Belagali with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagalkot, in connection with investigation into an offence of a dacoity. The Police desired to search the house of Santappa and be was accordingly called and questioned regarding the offence of dacoity under investigation. In the course of the enquiry the accused volunteered to produce a pistol which, he stated, he had hidden in his house. The police officers accompanied by the accused and the Panchas, went to the house of Santappa at about 5 P. M. on 29-5-1953. In the presence of the panchas and the police officers, Santap...
Ghudusab Ibrahim Mujawar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom225; 1956CriLJ495
ORDER1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, Cantonment, finding the applicant guilty of an offence under Section 66(b) Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. The prosecution case was that on 23-3-1954 the police went to a darga at which the applicant was sleeping and made him open .with a key which he had the lock of a room of the darga. There were found in it 12 bottles of brandy and one bottle of Scotch whisky. The applicant's defence was that the room in which the brandy and whisky were found was not locked and in support of his contention he examined one witness who supported his case. The learned trial Magistrate preferred, however, the evidence of the complainant Jamadar and the panch Gundu Narayan. The panchnama also mentioned that a door of the room was opened by the applicant who had got a key with him. The applicant was asked about what he had to say about the prosecution case, when he gave no explanation as to the cir...
State Vs. Kurbanali Akbarali and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom239
ORDER1. This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Broach, for quashing the conviction of the two accused persons who have been convicted by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach of offences under Section 24(4), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. Accused No. 1 has also been convicted of the offence under Section 504, I.P.C.2. The complainant in this case is a tenant of the ground floor of a building of which accused No. 2 is the landlady. Accused No. 1 is the husband of accused No. 2. It was the ease of the complainant that the two accused had cut off the electric connection of the complainant's premises on 16-6-1952 and the water supply of the complainant's premises on 17-6-1952.When on 18-6-1952 the complainant went to protest, accused No. 1 abused him. The defence which the accused persons adopted at the trial was that the complainant never had got either water connection or electr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »