Mumbai Court January 1956 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.
Yasoo Vithoba Vs. Babubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom388
Vyas, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal and it arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge S.D. at Jalgaon, in Special Regular Civil Suit No. 15 of 1949. By this suit, the plaintiff-respondent sought to recover possession of the suit properties from the defendant together with mesne profits and costs.The learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to deliver possession of four lands described in Clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of para 4 of the plaint to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge also directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 1200 and three fourths of the costs of the suit. Against this decision, the defendant has appealed.2. The defendant-appellant Is the uncle of the plaintiff's husband. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband and the defendant were separate in status and that the property of the plaintiff's husband was being separately enjoyed by him. The plaintiff's husband died ...
Jairamdas Jotsingh Menghani Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom426; 1956CriLJ725
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay convicting the appellant of two offences, under Section 161, Penal Code and under Section 161 or alternatively under Section 165 of the Code respectively, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a flue of Rs. 300/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the first offence and to rigorous imprisonment for three months for the second offence. The two substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case against the accused was that during the period of August to October 1954 he was an overseer in the Engineering Department of the Central Railway and as such a public servant. According to the prosecution case, in the month of October 1954 the accused attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 200/- and did in fact accept a sum of Rs. 160/- from Dhondu Daji Mayekar as an illegal gratification and thereby he committed an offence punishable unde...
Appanna Yellawwa Madar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom471; 1956CriLJ869
Gajendragadkar, J.1. In the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Bijapur four persons were charged with having committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section. 34, I. P. C. The case against them was that on the night between the 27th and 28th of April 1955, at about 3 or 4 a. m., the four accused persons committed the murder of Tippanna Mangaleppa Madar in the Municipal office at Guledgud and that this murder was committed in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 3 and 4 facilitated the commission of this offence by standing near the two witnesses Durgappa and Kariyappa.Accused No. 3 is further alleged to have facilitated the commission of the offence by kicking and silencing the said Kariyappa, and accused No. 4 by instigating accused Nos. 1 and 2 to finish up Tippanna without delay. In the act of committing this murder, accused No. 2 held the legs of the deceased and accused No. 1 caused his death by inflicting injuries on his per...
Gurappa Ningappa Patne Vs. Basawanappa Apparao Kilje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom31; (1956)58BOMLR459; ILR1956Bom594
ORDER1. The petitioner-applied to the Debt Adjustment Court at Akalkot for adjustment of his debts and claimed a declaration that an agreement of sale, dated 10-9-1942 under which, Ningappa Patne, father of the petitioner received Rs. 600/- from the respondent Baswannappa as price of certain property delivered by him was a transaction in the nature of a mortgage and for an order that the property be redeemed alter adjustment of his debts under the B. A. D. R. Act and for an order for possession. The application was resisted by the respondent Baswannappa. The learned trial Judge held that the transaction evidenced by the agreement, dated 10-9-1942, was intended to be a mortgage and Rs. 268/- were at the date of the application due by the petitioner under that mortgage. The learned Judge directed that the petitioner do pay the amount declared to be due in instalments specified in the order and that a charge be retained for those instalments on the property agreed to be conveyed.Against t...
Jal Hirji Taraporevala Vs. K.A. Hamid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom323
1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C. files by the plaintiff, whose suit for a decree for possession of certain premises in Jassim House No. 25, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay, against his tenant has been dismissed by the trial Court and which decree of dismissal has been confirmed in appeal by the Court of Small Causes exercising jurisdiction under Section 29 of Bombay Act 57 of 1947.The plaintiff purchased the building known as Jassim House some time in 1946. Thereafter he served a notice upon the defendant on 6-3-1947, requiring the defendant to vacate and deliver possession of a fiat in the building which was occupied by the defendant as a tenant of the Plaintiff.It appears that no suit was filed by the plaintiff after termination of the contract of tenancy by that notice. On 12-6-1952, a fresh notice was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant requiring the defendant to vacate and deliver possession of the premises to him and on 14-8-1952 the suit out of which ...
Malojirao Abajirao Vs. Tarabai Nathajirao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom397
Vyas, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Satara in Special Suit No. 15 of 1950. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant Kalojirao Abajirao Bhoite for a declaration that he is the Owner of the suit properties and accordingly entitled to enjoy the income and recover possession of these properties from the defendants.The suit properties comprise of serial numbers 1 to 24 and a Wada situated at Hingangaon, a village in the district of North Satara. The suit had been filed upon a contention that the plaintiff was adopted by Abajirao Nathaji as a son to himself on 12-9-1913.The suit has been resisted by the defendants upon the grounds (1) that the plaintiff's adoption by Abajirao was invalid as Abajirao was an idiot and of unsound mind and also a leper and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to the estate of Abajirao, (2) that Maruti Tukaram the husband of defendant 1, was adopted by Bai Babai, wid...
Kishindas Tekchand Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom423; 1956CriLJ724
ORDER1. This is an application for stay of criminal proceedings pending the final disposal of a suit between the parties. Applications of this kind are frequently made to this Court and in proper cases stay of criminal proceedings is ordered. In the present case also, at an earlier stage we granted stay of criminal proceedings on 5-7-1954.The present application for stay by the same petitioner has become necessary because of certain developments which have a material bearing on the merits of the claim for stay of criminal proceedings. The dispute centres round the rights of the petitioner in respect of a terrace as well as the premises in his occupation.In the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner by opponent 2, it has been alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence under 6. 441, Penal Code and this charge is made against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no concern whatever with the tenancy rights in respect of the premises and that the lease in ...
Thakurdas Kimatrai and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom430; 1956CriLJ729
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an application made under Section 215, Cr. P. C. and on behalf of the petitioners Mr. Nagranj has contended that the order of commitment passed against the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan Camp, should be quashed at least in respect of the offence under Section 376, I. P. C.It appears that commitment proceedings were started against the two petitioners and others and the allegation made against them was that offences under Section 5, Bigamous Marriages Act and Sections 376 and 406, I. P. C. had been committed by them.As a result of the enquiry held by the learned Magistrate, he came to the conclusion that a prima facie, case had been made out against accused No. 1 under Section 376 read with Section 406, and against accused No. 3 under Section 376 read with Section 109.The learned Magistrate took the view that not even a prima facie case had been made out against accused Nos. 2 and 4. That is why ho has committed the two petitione...
Dharamdas Hukumtrai Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom512; 1956CriLJ882
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is an application for stay of criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner by opponent No. 2. The complaint against the petitioner pending trial in case No. 131/S of 1955 on the file of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, is that the petitioner has committed offences under Sections 341 and 451, I. P. C. This complaint was filed on 1-6-1954.On 20-7-1934, the petitioner, filed a civil suit and in the suit the same subject-matter is included and the petitioner claims relief on allegations which are wholly inconsistent with the allegations madein the complaint against him. On 28-10-1955, the petitioner made the present application for stay of criminal proceedings, Meanwhile it appears that the original complaint was dismissed in March 1955 but on 6-4-1955 it has been re-filed and process hag been issued on it.2. Mr. Nagrani for the complainant contends that, in dealing with questions of this kind it would be necessary to bear in mind the pri...
Varadam Shetty Jambulanna and anr. Vs. Narshi Mulji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom720
ORDER1. This is a petition to set aside an award made by arbitrators appointed under the rules framed by the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange. The opponents are members of that association, but the petitioners are not. There were certain transactions in groundnuts between the parties on several dates. These transactions were in fact made by telegrams and telephone calls. No contracts in connection with these were embodied in any document far less in any contract in accordance with any form prescribed by the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange.When the opponents went before the arbitrators a written statement was filed under protest by the petitioners and in that written statement they took up two points, first that there was no reference at all to arbitration and there being no written reference to arbitration the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to enter upon the adjudication; secondly it was argued alternatively that even if there was such an agreement the contracts were void as being contrary to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »