Mumbai Court February 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.
Bilasrai Juharmal Vs. Durgadutt Motiram Seksaria and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom526
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Coyajee J. making a notice taken out by the first respondent under Order 21, Rule 16 absolute. The plaintiff, who is respondent No. 3, filed a suit against the firm of Juharmal Sarupchand and against another defendant with whom we are not concerned, and a decree was passed -against the firm on 18-1-1955 for a sum of Rs. 31,435-11-0 and costs and interest, and the first respondent alleged that this decree was assigned to him by the third respondent on 19-7-1955, and basing his right to execute the decree on this assignment the first respondent took out a notice under Order 21, Rule 16. The notice was issued against the appellant who is a partner in the firm of Juharmal Sarupchand against whom execution was sought, and as already pointed out that notice was made absolute by Coyajee J. 2. In showing cause two defences were taken by the appellant and the first was that an arrangement was arrived at while the suit was pending betwe...
Chhanubhai Karansang Vs. Sardul Mansang and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom99; (1956)58BOMLR463; ILR1956Bom764
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather interesting question arises as to the application of the Tenancy Act to lands situated outside the State of Bombay. The petitioner, who is the landlord, applied for possession of the land in the possession of his tenant-opponent No. 1 on the ground of bonafide requirement for Personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar held that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide requirement and dismissed his application. The Prant Officer also dismissed the application but on a different ground. The view taken by the Prant Officer was that as a landlord personally cultivated land more than fifty acres, he was not entitled to Possession under Section 34 (2) (a) of the Tenancy Act end that view of the Prant Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. The area personally cultivated by the landlord, according to the finding of the Prant Officer and the Tribunal, is 55 acres and 29 gunthas and out of these 10 acres and 12 gunthas are lands situated in Saurashtra outside the State...
Maruti Manku Patil and anr. Vs. Waman Trimbak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom639
Chagla, C.J. 1. The petitioners are tenants and the first respondent is the landlord and he filed an application before the Mamlatdar based on a notice given by him on 22nd March 1952 terminating the tenancy as from 31st March 1953 on the ground that he required the lands for his personal cultivation.2. Two questions arose before the Revenue Tribunal and which has been agitated before us. One was whether the Amending Act 33 of 1952 which came into force on the 12th January 1953 before the notice expired had application. In view of the recent Full Bench decision it is clear that the rights of the parties must be governed by the Amending Act.The only contention with regard to the Amending Act put forward by the tenant was that the landlord was only entitled to half the area of the land leased under Section 34 (2A) (3) of the Tenancy Act. That raises a question of fact and we will remand this matter to the Mamlatdar to decide whether the landlord's holding was more than the holding descri...
The State of Bombay Vs. the Ahmedabad Education Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR572
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a reference made to us under section 23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and it raises a rather interesting question as to what exactly is the connotation of the expression 'business of selling or supplying goods' used in section 2(c) of the Act. 2. The facts necessary for the determination of that question have been submitted to us in the statement of the case as required by the section. The facts are brief and simple. The Ahmedabad Education Society has as its objects the spread of education, the making of education accessible to all sections of the people, starting and taking over Arts Colleges, and other similar objects, and in furtherance of these objects the society wanted to put up buildings for colleges and residential quarters for the staff and hostels for students. They gave a contract for the construction of these buildings to Messrs Gannon Dunkerley & Co., Ltd. The society then realised that it would be cheaper and more economical to have a brick factory ...
Bai Radhabai Vasudeo Jethabhoy Vs. Nandlal Laxmichand Chanana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom649; (1957)59BOMLR127
1. This is a suit by landlady filed under somewhat unusual circumstances against a person who is in occupation of Room No. 2 on the second floor. The landlady was, at all material times, in possession of the flats on the fourth and fifth floors of Gopal House situated at Kumbhar-wada Crass Lane, as also a room on the second floor thereof and she occupied them with her son one Gopalji. In May 1951 the plaintiff went out of Bombay, leaving Gopalji in occupation of the premises. She says that when she returned in July 1951, she found Room No 2 on the second floor occupied by the defendant in this suit and the fourth and fifth floors occupied by the defendant in Suit No. 137 of 1952. These persons claim to be tenants of the premises respectively by them. They paid rent to the said Gopalji and rely on the rent receipts given by him. The plaintiff's case is that her son Gopalji had no authority to let out the premises to any one and therefore the defendants in this case as well as in Suit No...
Laxman Balvant Bhopatkar and anr. Vs. Charity Commissioner, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom83; (1956)58BOMLR741; ILR1956Bom831
Vyas, J.1. This appeal arises from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Poona dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 325 of 1954 filed under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act by the trustees of the Kesari Maratha Trust, and it raises an interesting question under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, namely, whether the Kesari Maratha Trust is a pub-lic trust under the Act 2. The circumstances under which the trusteesof the Kesari Maratha Trust filed the above appli-cation under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Actare these: The two newspapers 'Kesari'' and'Maratha' were started by Lokmanya Tilak inPoona. Lokmanya Tilak died in the year 1920. Be-fore his death he made a will on 5-4-1918, atColombo making certain dispositions of his property.The only provisions of the will with which weare concerned in this appeal are those which occurunder the caption 'Chhapkhana' (printing press).The testator stated in this part of his will that apublic trust had been created by h...
The State Vs. Pritamdas Khatumal Mancharamani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom559; 1956CriLJ984
Gajendkagahkar, J. 1. This criminal appeal & the criminal revisional application arise from proceedings taken against the respondent under Section 420 read with Ss. 511 and 275, Penal Code. The facts on which the prosecution of the respondent was based are very few and most of the material facts are not in dispute. The respondent is a resident of Kalyan Camp.It appears that Sub-Inspector, Chaubal of the Anti-Corruption Branch, Thana, had received information that certain persons were selling spurious drugs in the market. That is why Chaubal contacted Ovalekar on 4-8-1953 and persuaded him to act as a bogus customer. Ovalekar was given Rs. 110/- by Mr. Chaubal and in pursuance of the agreement between him and Mr. Chaubal, he purchased 6 doze bottles of Seclopen and Procain Penicillin prepared by Glaxo and Dumex Laboratories from the accused. These bottles were sold by the accused at the rate of Rs. 9/- per dozen, when the standard price was Rs. 12/- to Rs. 15/- per dozen.On 28-8-1953, M...
State Vs. M.S. Neseeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom529; 1956CriLJ982
Gajendragadkar, J,1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon, in favour of the respondent. The respondent was charged, under Section 4(1)(c), Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1948. The case against him was that whilst he was working as Sub-Registrar at Bhadgaon he used to sell tickets of a lottery run by one P. D. Charity Fund of the Imperial Trading Co. of Calcutta to the persons who came to his office for the registration of their documents.In support of this case the prosecution relied on the evidence of four witnesses Daulat Patil, peon Pandit, Kaushal Patil and Shripat Patil Daulat stated that he had purchased a two rupee ticket from the accused while the three other witnesses stated, that they had taken one such ticket each.Besides, the prosecution relied upon the statement made by the accused before the Prant Officer during the course of the departmental enquiry h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›