Mumbai Court June 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.
C.R.H. Readymoney Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom181; (1957)59BOMLR786; 1958CriLJ607; ILR1958Bom128
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The first petitioners are a private limited company carrying on the business of importers, merchants and dealers in medicinal preparations containing alcohol including Hall's Wine throughout India, and the second petitioner is the Managing Director and one of the major shareholders of the first petitioner company. It appears that in the beginning of January, 1952 the first petitioners were appointed sole agents for India for Hall's Wine which is manufactured by Stephen Smith & Co. of United Kingdom, The second petitioner buys, possesses and consumes Hall's Wine for the purpose of his health and according to him this Wine is productive of the beneficial effects of invigoration, strength and energy. The petition from which this appeal arises has been filed on the ground that the fundamental rights of the first petitioner company under Article 19(1)(g) and the fundamental rights of the second petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) in respect of Hall's Wine have been affecte...
Kanji Kurji Vs. Kala Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR846
Tendolkar, J.1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 applied to the Collector of Amreli under Section 84 of the Tenuncy Act of 1948 for eviction of the applicant from Survey Nos. 274 and 288 of village Chakargad. They claimed to be the heirs of the mortgagor of these lands who had redeemed the lands from the mortgagee-one Tryambak Purshottam-on October 10, 1954. The petitioner before us was a tenant of the mortgagee, and the case of the first two respondents before the Collector was that he had ceased to be a tenant upon redemption of the mortgage and had become a trespasser and was, therefore, liable to be evicted summarily under Section 84. The Collector held that the petitioner was a trespasser after redemption of the mortgage and, therefore, granted summary eviction. There was a revision application by the petitioner to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, and the only question that the Revenue Tribunal considered and decided was whether the petitioner continued to be a tenant after the redemption of ...
Jagannath Balwant Shedge Vs. the Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR782
Vyas, J.1. His Lordship, after stating the facts as above, proceeded. It is clear that these appeals raise an important point of law. On July 30, 1938, Kisan Jagdhane leased S. Nos. 26 and 27 of Nandur, District Ahmednagar, to defendant No. 3. The rent note which was passed in favour of defendant No. 3 in that connection was exh. 43. It was a rent note for ten years. The period of ten years was to begin from April 1938 and it was to expire in April 1948. On August 20, 1942, Kisan Jagdhane mortgaged these two S. Nos. 26 and 27 to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 2,500. The period of the mortgage was five years and the deed of mortgage is exh. 44. Defendant No, 1 was a binamidar for defendant No. 2, On August 8, 1945, Kisan executed a second rent note of these lands in favour of defendant No. 3. The period of this rent note was 15 years. It was 15 years from April 1948. On September 23, 1943, defendant No. 2 executed a rent note of these lands in favour of the plaintiff company. This rent note wa...
Chand Mohammad Vs. Murtuzakhan Mohammad Mustafakhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom194; (1957)59BOMLR1084; ILR1958Bom234
1. This second appeal raises an interesting question on which, it is staled before me by counsel appearing at the Bar, there is no direct decision of any Court in India. The dispute relates to a house in Circle No. 17/23 at Nagpur originally of the ownership of the Hajrabi and her son Shaikh Hussain. On 3rd September 1946 Hajrabi and Shaikh Hussain agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff for Rs. 925. On 5th September 1945, one Chand Mohmad, who will hereafter be referred to as the first defendant, persuaded Hajrabi and Shaikh Hussain to sell the house to him. On 7th November 1943 the plaintiff was intimated about the sale to the first defendant but the plaintiff obtained on 6th December 1945 a sale deed of the house from Hajrabi and Shaikh Hussain in purported fulfilment of the obligation under the agreement dated 3rd September 1945.The plaintiff then filed civil suit No. 12-A of 1949 in the Court of die 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Nagpur, for a declaration that ho is the owner of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›