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.
Williams Luis Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom185; 1956CriLJ391
Chainani, J. 1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 193, Indian Penal Code ana-the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 201/- Imposed upon him.2. The facts of the case briefly are that on 8-1-1955, one Jeanne Mondon was arrested by the Colaba police for an offence under Sections 5 and 6, Prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923. The accused and one Mohiddin Mahomed acted as panches in that case. The case against Jeanne Mondon was tried by Mr. Nasrulla, presidency Magistrate 16th Court, Bombay.While that case was pending the accused end Mohiddin were arrested on the night of 13/ 14th February on the charge of having assaulted one Luis Jacob. They were detained on the night of 13/14th February at the Colaba Police station. They were produced before the Presidency Magistrate from 26th of February to 14th March.On the 14th March the Magistrate was requested to discharge the accused as the medical report from the hospital showed tha...
In Re: Rupa Sonya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom193; 1956CriLJ479
Shah, J. 1. Rupa Sonya Rathodi of the village of Nasarpur Taluka Nandurbar, District West Khandesh, was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, West Khandesh, for an offence under Section 326 of the Penal Code. The trial was held with the aid of assessors. The assessors were unanimously of the opinion that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the view of the assessors and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The accused preferred an appeal to this Court against the order of conviction and sentence. At the time when the appeal was heard foradmission, this Court was of the view that the sentence inflicted by the learned Sessions Judge was grossly inadequate and a notice was ordered to be issued to the accused requiring him to show cause why the sentence passed upon him should not be enhanced. We have, therefore, before us the appeal filed by the accused and the notice issued against him requiring him t...
Ramrao Raoji Palkar Vs. Amir Kasam Bhagwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR284
Chainani, J.1. The facts in this case briefly are that applicant No. 1, original defendant No. 1, is the tenant of the opponent-plaintiff since several years. In November 1952, the plaintiff filed a suit against the two defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises, arrears of rent and future mesne profits. He alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1 had agreed to pay him rent at Rs. 10 per month and that he was in arrears of rent since August 15, 1947. Applicant No. 2 was joined as defendant No. 2, as she was living in the suit premises along with defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 contended that the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 4 per month, that the rent claimed by the plaintiff was excessive and that rent only for three months, September, October and November 1952, was in arrears.2. The trial Court found that the standard rent was Rs. 6 per month and that defendant No. 1 was not ready and willing to pay this rent. The trial Court, therefore, passed a decree for ...
Mamlatdar of Baroda as Custodian of the Properties of the Evacuee Abdu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom498
Chainani, J. 1. The facts of the suit from which this revision application arises are briefly these: The suit premises had been leased by the plaintiff to defendant 1, Abdid Satar, at a rent of Rs. 41/- per month. The rent was paid upto October 1948. Thereafter, it appears to have fallen into arrears. Defendant 1 migrated to Pakistan some time about the beginning of 1949.As therefore the plaintiff could not serve a notice on him personally, a notice terminating his tenancy was affixed at the suit premises on 29-9-1949. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovering the arrears of rent and for obtaining possession of the property. On 7-2-1950, defendant 1 was declared to be an evacuee.The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properly then took possession of the suit premises. He was joined as defendant 2 in the suit. He contended that the notice terminating the tenancy had not been properly served. He also contended that the notice had been waived, as the plaintiff had, during th...
Shankarappa Ramappa and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom55; (1956)58BOMLR278; ILR1956Bom397
Chagla, C.J. 1. This petition is the result of an extremely unfortunate controversy between Kannad speaking and Marathi speaking members of the Village Panchayat of Sankeshwar which is situated in Hukeri Taluka in the Belgaum District. It appears that the record of this Panchayat used to be; kept in Marathi language. On the 15th May 1954, the Panchayat passed a resolution that the record should be kept in Kannad language. The Panchayat consists of 15members, 11 of whom are Kannad speaking members and 4 are Marathi speaking members and the Sarpanch also happens to be a Marathi speaking member. On the 24th June 1954, the Collector suspended the execution of this resolution, acting under Section 99 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. An appeal was preferred to the Director of Local Authorities and he set aside the order of the Collector on the 15th July 1954, and directed that the resolution passed by the Panchayat should remain effective with the modification that bills and notices...
Harshadrai N. Desai Vs. Collector of Surat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom170
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioner is an Inamdar of the Inam village known as Khurvel in the Chikhli Taluka, Surat District. On 27-11-1822 the Government of India granted a sanad to one Ferozshah Dhunji-shah in respect of six villages of which the village of Khurvel was one. On 27-5-1918 one Dullabhaj Haribhai Desai purchased the right, title and interest of Perozshah in this village of Khurvel and the petitioner is the descendant of Dullabhai.The Personal Inams Abolition Act of 1952 came into force on 13-6-1953- By this Act all personal mams were extinguished including the exemption granted to any person from payment of land revenue. But Section 4 of the Act provided that where the amount of exemption was or exceeded Rs. 5.000/- the inam was to be extinguished from 1-8-1953 and in other cases from 1-8-1955._The State of Bombay took the view that the petitioner's inam was extinguished from 1-8-1953. The petitioner's contention was that the sanad with regard to the village of Khurvel exempt...
State Vs. Dagdoo Shivram Mandavker and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom277; 1956CriLJ582
Shah, J. 1. Four accused were placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for trial for offences under Section 148 Penal Code, and under Section 325 read with Section 149, I. P. C., and under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C.The case was tried before the learned Sessions Judge with the aid of a special jury. The special jury brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty against all the four accused. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and acquitted- all the accused, The State of Bombay has preferred an appeal to this Court against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. As we propose to direct a retrial in this case, we do not desire to make any observations which might prejudice the accused at the retrial for the offences with which they were charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and have been acquitted.3. The charge against the four accused was that on 6-9-1954 they and One Shankar Ram-chandra form...
S.M. NooruddIn Vs. Mahomed Oomer Mahomed Nurulla Saheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom641
1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay. It is necessary at the outset to set out the history of this litigation as it has a direct hearing on some of the questions that have been canvassed before me on this appeal.2. The petitioner applied for registration of his trade mark known as 'HAUTIN' in respect of Bidis, cigars, scented tobacco and tobacco throughout India on 21-8-1942. The application was advertised on 1-10-1945 and the respondent filed his notice of opposition on 23-3-1946. Against this notice of opposition the petitioner submitted a counter-statement on 12-7-1946. Thereafter on 5-12-1947 the respondent filed an affidavit of the evidence in support of opposition in which a document called a Panchnama dated 19-10-1937 was referred to.It was alleged that under the said panchnama the petitioner had admitted the right of the opponents father to the trade mark 'HAUTIN' and had been permitted to use the trade mark in Trichinopoly only until ...
Ranjanibai Jamnadas Champsey Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom633
Desai, J.1. This is an action on a combined policy of life insurance and accident insurance in case of death effected with the defendants, who are an insurance company, in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff, who, on 14-2-1950 died suddenly in consequence of a fall from a window on the fourth floor of a building in which he was residing.Some years prior to his death, on 18-3-1947, Jamnadas Champsey, the deceased husband of the plaintiff, had insured his life with the defendants in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and in the event of the death of the deceased before the expiry of the stipulated term the defendants further guaranteed to pay the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- plus a sum at the rate of Rs. 30/- per thousand assured for each year's premium paid after the first year.By that policy of insurance the defendants further agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- if at any time when the policy was in force the life assured should sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›