Mumbai Court August 1957 Judgments
Abdul Faiyaz Vs. the President and Members of the Board of Revenue
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR174
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue passed in a case arising under the Berar Land Revenue Code. The relevant facts are briefly these:In the year 1868, the Government of India confirmed and continued the grant, of 22 bighas of land, then assessed at Rs. 14 situate in mouza Sirala, taluq and district Amravati, in favour of one Nujjumoddin son of Bodroddin for performing the services of Kazi and Khatib. An Inam Certificate was accordingly issued in his favour. In column 19 of the Certificate it is stated 'For the service of Gazee and Katib' and in column 21 'To be continued as heretofore and so long as Government shall see no cause for resumption on ground of misappropriation'. In. the last column dealing with the amount of quit-rent and the cess payable to Government the entry is 'None'. Thus the Inam is for rendering services and is hereditary, but liable to resumption. It was also at the time of the gra...
Tag this Judgment!Sitabai and ors. Vs. Kothulal Budhu Lodhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom78; (1958)60BOMLR408; ILR1958Bom604
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Appeal No. 91-A of 1951 which was heard and decided by the learned Judge on 12-7-1952. The said Civil Appeal No. 91-A of 1951, in its turn, arose out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Gondia, in Civil Suit No. 54-A of 1950 which was heard and decided by him on 27-10-1951. Second Appeal No. 651 of 1952 is filed by defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and Second Appeal No. 641 of 1952 is filed by defendant No. 2.2. These appeals arise a question under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956) and the question raised is whether the principle of reversion to the tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings of a Hindu leaving behind him surviving no issue but only a widow is saved from the operation of the Act. This point arises upon the following facts.3. The plaintiff who is one of the respondents in these appeals has filed Civil Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Mahadeo Deshmukh Vs. Jamnadas Lakhanchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1233
Tendolkar, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of construction of Section 2, Sub-section (5), Explanation II, of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act, 1947. The matter arises in this way. The appellants before us, who were the original plaintiff's, filed a suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge at Panvel, being Suit No. 478 of 1950, for a, declaration that certain transactions of sale by plaintiff No. 1's deceased father were in fact mortgages. One of the points raised by way of defence in the said suit was that the plaintiff was a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947; and it is common ground that if he was such a debtor, then his remedy was under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and his suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act was not maintainable. The learned trial Judge held that he was not a debtor within the meaning: of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Indurkar and ors. Vs. Pravinchandra Hemchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR397(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a perfectly hopeless appeal against a judgment and order of K. T. Desai, J., whereby the learned judge ordered that the respondent to the writ petition who are the appellant before us, are restrained from continuing or further proceeding with the assessment proceedings. The petition arose under these circumstances. The petitioner was an assessee to whom, on the 6th of March, 1954, a notice was issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act that in respect of the assessment year 1945-46 certain income had escaped assessment. This consisted of two sums of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 3,500 which were found to be deposited in the joint names of the petitioners and another in the International Bank of India at Navsari and Zaveri Bazar branches respectively. Both the deposits were in December, 1943. On the 9th February, 1955, an assessment order was made holding that these two deposits constituted income from undisclosed sources and adding them to the income of the assessee as ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangnath Raoji and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom390; (1958)60BOMLR87; 1958CriLJ1300; ILR1958Bom473
Shelat, J.1. The three appellants, Sayed Dadan, Daulat-khan and Rangnath, who were the original accused, 1, 2 and 3, were charged under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Auran-gabad, by his order dated 24-12-1956, convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Ss. 392 and 397 and sentenced each of them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He also found accused No. 3 guilty under Section 392, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appellants have preferred these appeals.2.The prosecution case was that, in the evening of 11-2-1956, the three accused, armed with guns and a stick, came to the house of witness Ganpatrao at the village Nipani Pokhari in Jalna taluka, District Aurangabad. Thai was at about 6 p. m. Accused Nos 1 and 2 (Sayed Dadan and Daulat) were in Khaki dress, each armed with a gun, and the 3rd accused was dr...
Tag this Judgment!Doshi Prabhudas Girdharlal Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR815
K.T. Desai, J.1. These are two petitions filed before us under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As the principal question for determination is common to both the petitions and as it arises out of one application made to the Mam-latdar under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951, it is agreed between the parties that the petitions should be hoard together and that there should be one judgment delivered in respect of both the petitions.2. Doshi Prabhudas Girdharlal and Mohanlal Mathuradas, acting as Vahivat-dars of two separate joint families, made an application before the Mamlatdar for the allotment of 5 aeres andj gunthas of land situate at Mahuva of which they were the Barkhalidars for the purpose of personal cultivation. They had given that land to one Ghanchi Alibhai Gandabhai as a tenant. After the death of Ghanchi Alibhai, his eldest son Balubhai, who is opponent No. 3 in both the petitions, carried on the vahivat of Alibhai Gandabhai Opponent No. 3 as such Vahivat...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Pannalal Kanhyalal Desraj Jat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom56; (1958)60BOMLR1420; ILR1959Bom416
1. This judgment will also govern First Appeal Nos. 106 of 1952 and 107 of 1952. 2. These three appeals arise out of the decrees passed in three suits instituted by the respondent No. 1 Pannalal Desraj against the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, Shri G.K. Tiwari, who was Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, at the relevant time, and also against certain other parties. In all these suits the claim of the respondent No. 1 was for damages for breach of certain contracts entered into by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, with him. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 105 of 1952 arises, the contract was for making certain extensions in the Bai Gangabai Memorial Hospital at Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 106 of 1952 arises, the contract was for remodelling the Kunwar Tilaksingh Civil Hospital, Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 107 of 1952 arises, the contract was for the construction of a new Hospital to be known as Twynam Hospit...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mafaldo U. Mascarenhas Vs. Annie Dias
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR369
Mody, J.1. His Lordship after dealing with questions not material to this report, proceeded Questions Nos. 7 and 8 are again co-related. These two questions involve the construction of the latter part of the said Clause 11(b). As already-noticed, defendant No. 2 has yet not become entitled to receive the income of one-third part of the residue during his life time as the trustees have yet not been satisfied that defendant No. 2 has improved in his behaviour and has given up his vices. As defendant No. 2 does not board and Lodge with Bella Wallis, he is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 40 per month only and under Clause 11(b) the trustees are directed to accumulate the balance of the income payable to him until the trustees in their absolute discretion are satisfied that defendant No. 2 has improved in his behaviour. under Section 117 of the Indian Succession. Act, 1925, certain limitations have been imposed on the accumulation of income, one of the important limitations being that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Salemahomed Haji Haroon Kably Vs. Mahomed Taher Jaffrani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom210; (1957)59BOMLR1193; ILR1958Bom306
Tendolkar, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order of Coyajee J., on a notice of motion whereby he refused to appoint a Receiver of certain property. The defendant is the son of the plaintiff and the shares of the plaintiff and the defendant in the said property are 4 annas and 12 annas respectively. It is alleged that there are two existing mortgages for Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- on this property. The plaintiff says that these mortgages are bogus and the only person who can file a suit to set aside the mortgages, according to the plaintiff, is a Receiver if appointed of the said property and it is mainly in the ground that these mortgages ought to be set aside that an appointment of a Receiver was applied for. The learned Judge, although he came to the conclusion that there were circumstances in which the mortgages appeared to be suspicious, refused to appoint a Receiver but made an order for deposit of certain money per month for the share of the plaintiff in the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkumar Bachu Sharma Vs. Bai Khatizabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom253; (1957)59BOMLR1224; ILR1958Bom360
S.T. Desai, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of some importance and nicely relating to the construction of Section 9(A) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these. In a suit for ejectment filed against the appellant by the respondents a consent decree was obtained in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay and by that decree the appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,800/-, another sum of Rs. 930/- for costs of the suit and a further sum of Rs. 325/- for additional costs. The decree was passed on 16th December, 1953. Two sums of Rs. 1000/- each were paid by the appellant to the respondents on 8th February 1953 and 30th April, 1953 respectively. No payment having been made thereafter by the appellant the respondents applied to the Court for issuance of an Insolvency Notice and the Insolvency Notice was issued by the Court on 21-10-1956 and was served on the appellant on 9th November 1956. On 8th January, 1957 the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »