Mumbai Court March 1957 Judgments
C.B.L. Bhatnagar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom196; (1957)59BOMLR364; 1958CriLJ617
ORDER1. This is an application for revision from a complaint which has been filed in regard to an offence of defamation committed by the petitioner by certain articles published by him. The complaint in this case, it is common ground now, was presented by the Public Prosecutor for Greater Bombay to the Registrar of the City Sessions Court. It purported to be a complaint filed by the State of Bombay at the instance of Mr. M.S. Prasad, Income-tax Officer, C-III Ward, having his office at Aayakar Bhavan, Church-gate, Bombay. The complaint is signed by Mr. M. S. Prasad, who has also affirmed it before the Registrar of the City Sessions Court. At the bottom there is an endorsement that the complaint was drawn by the Public Prosecutor for Greater Bombay, which is not signed by anybody. Now, when a warrant was issued against the petitioner he raised a contention before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the complaint went for disposal, that he could not take cognizance of the Offe...
Tag this Judgment!Bholaram Murlidhar Agarwal Vs. R.S. Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR851; [1957]8STC445(Bom)
ORDERDixit, J.1. The applicant in this case is one Bholaram Murlidhar Agarwal, who does business under the name and style 'Bholaram Murlidhar Agarwal' at Gondia in the Bhandara District. The business which he carries on is business in general merchandise. He is a registered dealer within the meaning of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947). 2. As a dealer, he was assessed to sales tax for the period between 1st June, 1947 and 18th October, 1952, and six different notices were issued to him for six different periods. These six periods were : (1) 1st June, 1947, to 12th November, 1947; (2) 13th November, 1947, to 1st November, 1948; (3) 2nd November, 1948, to 21st October, 1949; (4) 22nd October, 1949, to 9th November, 1950; (5) 10th November, 1950, to 30th October, 1951; and (6) 31st October, 1951, to 18th October, 1952. In respect of these six periods, orders of assessment were made respectively on the 11th March, 1949, 30th September, 1950, 29th April, 1951...
Tag this Judgment!Mukaremdas Mannudas and ors. Vs. Chhagan Kisan Bhawasar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom491; (1957)59BOMLR1144; ILR1957Bom809
1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession of a site ABCDE shown in the map filed with the plaint on the allegation that the land belongs to the Vaishnava Bairagi Samaj together with the structure thereon and the tombs and the temple and that the property constitutes a public trust. The suit was brought by five plaintiffs who claimed to be the members of this Vaishnava Bairagi Samaj. It appears that there was an old structure on the property which was dismantled by the defendants, the present respondents, who built a new one on the property.There is no dispute that at one time this property used to be managed by one Narsindas Bhagwandas Bairagi who had three sons Bhagwandas, Narayandas and Laldas Narayandas, who managed the property after Narsingdas had three sons Kisandas, Bisandas and Bandhudas, and it would appear that Bisandas mortgaged the property with Kisan, the father of the present defendant No. 1, on the 2nd of June 1927 for a consideration of Rs. 300/-. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Harilal Bhagwanji Vs. Shastri Hemshanker Umiyashanker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom8; (1957)59BOMLR881; ILR1958Bom765b
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, Defendant Harilal Bhagwanji mortgaged with possession the house in suit to the plaintiff Hem-shanker Umiyashanker for Rs. 7500/- by a deed of mortgage, Ex 5, dated 23-8-52. The mortgage sum was to carry interest at nine per cent, and the principal sum and interest were charged on the mortgaged property and the period for redemption was fixed at one year. A portion of the house was already in the occupation of the plaintiff as the defendant's tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 15/- and another portion was let out to one Mansukhlal on Rs. 17/- a month, the defendant himself occupying the remaining part of the house. Simultaneously with the mortgage, by a rent note Ex. 6, executed on the same day, the portion of the house in the defendant's occupation, was leased back to him by the plaintiff for a term of six months, the rent stipulated being Rs. 24-4-0 per month. The plaintiff sued the defendant for possession of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Gujoba Tulsiram Vs. Nilkanth and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom202; (1957)59BOMLR1123; ILR1957Bom847
1. The only point in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by him with the defendant. At the relevant time, while the defendant No. 1 was a major, the defendant No. 2 was a minor and the contract was entered into on his behalf by his father. It may be mentioned that the property in question solely belonged to the defendants having been gifted to them by their relation and was not their joint family property. The lower appellate Court held on the authority of the decision in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakruddin ILR 39 Cal 232 , and several other decisions that the agreement was not binding on the defendant No. 2 because he was a minor at the date of the agreement and that consequently specific performance could not be decreed. It however ordered the defendants to refund Rs. 450/- which were paid by the plaintiff to them as earnest money. 2. It is not disputed that the defendants as well as their father are tailors by profession...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyed Husan Sayad Husen and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom225; (1957)59BOMLR1161; ILR1958Bom100
Vyas, J.1. The appellants in this appeal were accused Nos. 1 to 18 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1956 which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, at Jalgaon. They have Been convicted by the learned Judge of an offence under Section 395 and an offence under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the learned Judge has convicted accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18 of an offence under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has sentenced all the 18 accused persons to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment upon all the 18 accused persons. Under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has passed a sentence of 18 months' R. I. upon accused Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyed Husan Sayed Husen and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ749
Vyas, J.1. The appellants in this appeal were accused Nos. 1 to 18 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1956 which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, at Jalgaon. They have been convicted by the learned Judge of an offence under Section 395 and an offence under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the learned Judge has convicted accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18 of an offence under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has sentenced all the 18 accused persons to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment. under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment upon all the 18 ac+cused persons. under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has passed a sentence of 18 months' R. I. upon accused Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Bhiwaji and ors. Vs. Ganpat Bablaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom25; (1957)59BOMLR1121; ILR1957Bom844
1. This is a defendants' appeal from a decree for possession of S.No. 705, subdivision 1-A, having an area of 4 acres and 14 gunthas situate at Shirajgaon Kasba, tahsil Ellichpur, district Amravati. 2. The relevant facts are briefly these: Sub-division 1-A of S.No. 705 having an area, 16 awes and 6 gunthas belonged to the plaintiff Ganpat. During his minority his mother acting as natural guardian sold 4 acres of land to the north to Bhiwaji, the father of the defendants, for a consideration of Rs. 900. It will thus be seen that there is a discrepancy in the area of the land shown in the sale deed as having been sold and that which is claimed in the plaint. However, since the defendants do not dispute the position in the Courts below that the area of the land conveyed to them under the sale deed was 4 acres and 14 gunthas as alleged in the plaint, I proceed on the footing that the land actually sold was 4 acres and 14 gunthas. 3. According to the plaintiff, the sale was not justified by...
Tag this Judgment!Sampat Ragho Tayade and anr. Vs. Surajmal Kaluram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom504; (1957)59BOMLR1112; ILR1958Bom797
1. This is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 2 to a suit for possession of Section. No. 24 of mauza mhasla Khurd, taluq Chikhli, district Buldana.2. The aforesaid field admittedly belonged to one Chhogamal who died in the year 1926. After his death his widow Smt. Ullahasbai came into possession of this field. She died on 14-12-1938. According to the plaintiff Ullahasabai was in possession of this field right till her death. The Plaintiff who claims that his father Kaluram was a brother of Chhogmal alleges in his plaint that the field was the self-acquired property of Chhogmal and that after the death of Ullahasabai he was entitled to succeed to it as the next reversioner. He therefore instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises on 2-8-1947. The plaintiff has further stated in the plaint that he learnt that after the death of Ullahasabai her sister Zumkabai took wrongful possession of the aforesaid field, that later she sold it to her son-in-law Jeoraj, in his turn sold i...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhai Mathubhai Patel Vs. Ramanlal Maganlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR689
Bavdekak, J.1. This is an application for revision arising from execution of an award passed under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. When the respondent-executor made an application to the Court under the provisions of Section 38(3) of the Act, the applicant met him with a contention that he had made payment of the instalments which the respondent contended had not been paid. The applicant said that all the instalments which were due had been paid, because after the award he used to hand over the whole of the produce of the land of the applicant which had been mortgaged to the opponent. It was with regard to the debt due upon this mortgage that the award had been passed. The applicant said that after he had handed over the whole produce of the land to the opponent, he paid to him only half the price of the produce, and he, the applicant, paid towards the debt due upon the award the other half of the price of the produce each year since the passing of the award. The opponent t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »