Mumbai Court March 1957 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.
Bhanshali Kushalchand Ramji and anr. Vs. Sha Shamji Jivraj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom53; (1957)59BOMLR684; ILR1957Bom582
ORDERThis revision application under paragraph 35 of the Kutch Province (Courts) Order, 1948, arises out of a suit for partition. The only question falling for consideration is whether the applicant-plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual possession of the Vakhar (shop) in suit. This property and another shop had been originally mortgaged with possession by the plaintiffs' uncle Laxmichand Jutha with the first defendant Shamji Jivraj on Jeth Vad30 of Samvat year 1989 for 5000 Koris and, on taking accounts of the mortgage, 7700 Koris were found due to the mortgagee towards which the plaintiffs paid 7000 Koris and for the balance of 700 Koris and for a cash consideration of 300 Koris, in all 1000 Koris, the plaintiffs mortgaged with possession the suit shop with the said defendant 1 by a deed of mortgage dated Vaishak Sud 4 of Samvat year 2001 and this is referred to in this suit as the first mortgage. By a second possessory mortgage the plaintiffs mortgaged the shop to defendants 2, 3...
Burmah-shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Manmad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom43; (1957)59BOMLR699
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition by the Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., against the Manmad Municipality and the Administrator of the Municipality challenging an attempt of the Municipality to levy octroi duty on goods imported for sale within the area of the Municipality.2. Only a few facts are material for the determination of this petition. The Manmad Municipality is governed by the provisions of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, and derives its authority to levy taxes from Section 59 of that Act. Several heads of taxation, from amongst which the Municipality may choose one or many, are enumerated in this section, and the head with which we are concerned is (iv) 'an octroi on animals or goods, or both, brought within the octroi limits for consumption, use or sale therein'. This is how the item stands since 11th of May 1954 when, by Section 9 of Act 35 of 1954, the words 'use or sale' were substituted for the words 'or use'. Therefore, prior t...
Daulatram Rameshwarlal Vs. B.K. Wadeyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom120; (1957)59BOMLR599; ILR1957Bom747; [1957]8STC617(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The appellants deal in cotton and castor oil. They are registered dealers under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, and they have also received the necessary authorisation under Section 12-A. On the 29th of September 1956, a notice of demand was served upon them calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 25,448-9-9, the notice dealt with the period from 1-4-1954 to 31-3-1955. As the notice indicated, the assessees were liable to pay sales tax and purchase tax in respect of certain quantities of castor oil and cotton sold by the appellants to the firm of Godimetla China Appalaruju. The matter came up before Mr. Justice K. T. Desai, and he took the view that the demand made was justified and dismissed the petition of the appellants, which had been filed to challenge this notice of demand.2. The question briefly is this. The sale with which we are concerned and which is sought to be taxed under the Sales Tax Act is a sale effected by the appellants with the firm of Godimetla China...
Satyanarayan Amolakchand Bhut Vs. Vithal Narayan Jamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom452; (1957)59BOMLR1071; ILR1957Bom840
1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree for damages t the extent of Rs. 394/4/- for an alleged breach of a contract for the sale of saw dust. The plaintiff has filed a cross objection in which he has claimed enhancement of the damages by Rs. 394/4/-.2. The relevant facts are as follows: The defendant who is a forest contractor and a timber merchant at Yeotmal had opened branch office at Murtizapur for the sale of timber and saw dust. According to the plaintiff, he had appointed Gopikisan (P.W. 2) as the manager of the shop and that Gopikisan entered into a contract with the plaintiff on 29-8-1948 for the supply of 2000 bags of saw dust within four months at the rate of Rs. 1/- per bag. The plaintiff alleges that he paid Rs. 250/-as an advance to Gopikisan, that Gopikisan delivered to him only 423 bags of saw dust and that neither he nor the defendant delivered to him the balance. It may be mentioned that in the contract it is stated that if a breach were committed the defen...
Parwatibai Namdeo Vs. Jagannath Maruti Warthi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1029
Dixit, J.1. Opponents Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of a house bearing municipal number 20/3 situate in ward No. 2 of the Wardha Municipal Committee. One Namdeo Gujar was a tenant of these premises, and he died on August 26, 1955, leaving him surviving Parwatibai as his only heir. On September 22, 1955, opponents Nos. 1 to 3, i.e. the landlords, applied to the Kent Controller for permission to serve upon Parwatibai a notice to quit, and the application was based on two grounds. One of the grounds was that the tenant was in arrears in payment of the rent, and the other ground was that he was a habitual defaulter. The Rent Controller who heard the application refused the land-lords' application, and upon appeal by the landlords, their appeal was allowed and the permission sought was granted to them. It is the, correctness of this order which Mr. Badkas appearing for the applicant has challenged by this petition.2. Mr. Badkas has raised an interesting question of law, and the question is whether...
Zamir Ahmed Raz Vs. D.R. Banaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: [1957]27CompCas634(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. An interesting and important question relating to company law arises on this appeal, and the facts that have to be considered are few and simple. The appellants were appointed on June 30, 1951, as additional directors of the company in liquidation of which the respondent is the official liquidator. The appellants attended two meetings of the board of directors on July 3, 1951, and August 24, 1951. On August 24, 1951, a petition was presented for winding up of the company and ultimately an order for winding up was made. On June 27, 1952, the list of contributories was settled and a certificate to that effect was issued on February 4, 1953. On July 6, 1956, the respondent liquidator applied to the learned Judge for placing the appellants on the list of contributories. The learned Judge acceded to that application and the appellants have come in appeal. 2. Under article 100 of the company, the qualification of a director is laid down, and that qualification is the holding o...
Ram Rijhumal Kriplani Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom125; (1957)59BOMLR875; 1958CriLJ481; ILR1958Bom96
Vyas, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is Ram Rijhumal Kriplani, original accused No. 1, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, of often CM under Section 120-B of the. Indian Penal Code and Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300, or a default sentence of one month's further rigorous imprisonment. No separate sentence has been passed upon him under Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts as contended by the prosecution may now shortly be stated. There were three persons charged in this case and, as I have just said, the present appellant was accused No. 1. The charge against the three accused was that during the period between 19th November 1954 and 30th April 1955, they did agree to do an illegal act, to wit, to offer gratifica...
Zamir Ahmed Raz and ors. Vs. D.R. Banaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom198; (1957)59BOMLR591; ILR1957Bom575
Chagla, C.J.1. An interesting and important question relating to Company Law arises on this appeal, and the facts that have to ho considered are few and simple. The appellants were appointed on 30-6-1951 as additional Directors of the company in liquidation of which the respondent is the Official Liquidator. The appellants attended two meetings of the Board of Directors on 3-7-1951 and 24-8-1951. On 24-8-1951 a petition was presented for winding up of the company and ultimately an order for winding up was made. On 27-6-1932 the list of con tributaries was settled and a certificate to that effect was issued on 4-2-1953. On 6-7-1956 the Respondent Liquidator applied to the learned Judge for placing the appellants on the list of contributaries. The learned Judge acceded to that application and the appellants have come in appeal.2. Under Article 100 of the company, the qualification of a Director is laid down and that qualification is the holding of ordinary shares of the nominal value of ...
Narayan Tanbaji MaraThe Vs. Rameshwar Guru Maheshpuri Gosami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR757
Gokhale, J.1. In this second appeal the original plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their suit by both the lower Courts. The plaintiffs were the tenants of field No. 23 situated in Mouza Koradi in the tahsil and district of Nagpur and that field had an area admeasuring 16.23 acres. The plaintiffs were absolute occupancy tenants and were in arrears in payment of rent to the extent of Its. 30-9-10. Their landlord was one Maheshpuri, the malguzar-lambardar of Mouza Koradi, and the present respondent Rameshpuri is the legal representative of the said Maheshpuri. As the tenants were in arrears, on August 10, 1942, the lambardar applied for recovering the arrears under the provisions of the C.P. Tenancy Act and, in pursuance of that application, the moveables of the tenants came to be attached. Subsequently part of the holding measuring five acres came to be sold on August 16, 1943, under Section 58-D of the C.P. Tenancy Act and the said sale was confirmed in favour of the present respond...
Scientific Soap Works and anr. Vs. Dalsukhbhai Mangaldas Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom47; (1957)59BOMLR539; ILR1957Bom564
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather important and interesting question relating to the law of trade marks arises on this appeal. The facts briefly are that the appellants' traae mark was registered on the 15th April 1944. It was a mars containing a Crane (bird) and the name 'Bug Chhap' and the mark was used in connection with washing soap used by the appellants. On the 1st June 1951, the first respondent made an application for registration of a trade mark which was of a Duck and bearing the name 'Batak Chhap'. On the 18th July 1951, the petitioners filed an infringement action against the first respondent before the District Court in connection with this mark and the appellants obtained an interim injunction. They also adopted criminal proceedings against the first respondent. It may be stated that the learned District Judge subsequently dissolved the interim injunction taking the view that there was no likelihood of deception comparing the two marks. On the 1st December 1951, the first responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »