Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1955Bom35; (1954)56BOMLR1000; ILR1955Bom49
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, setting aside an award on a petition made for that purpose by the opponents. On 7-11-1951, ,the appellant was employed by the respondent as a 'pueca adatia' to effect certain transactions in groundnuts, linseed, castor seeds and gold. On 26-2-1952, two transactions of purchase were outstanding. One was of 300 tons of groundnuts and the other was of 25 tons of linseed. Both these were forward transactions for April-May delivery. The case of the respondent was that he gave instructions to the appellant to close the transaction on 26-2-1952.In fact the appellant closed it on 5-3-1952, and his allegation was that he was asked to close the transaction on that date. As a result of the closing of the transaction on 5-3-1952, certain ' amount became due by the respondent to the appellant. In respect of this a dispute arose and dispute was referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Bombay O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom321; (1923)25BOMLR945
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 to the High Court of Bombay for the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage in a suit filed in the Court of the District Judge of Poona by the petitioner Alfred Wilkinson against his wife Norah Wilkinson as the respondent and a Captain D' Arcy as co-respondent.2. The petitioner alleged that he was married to the respondent on August 8, 1914, at Poona. That he resided in Poona till 1317 and in Bombay until 1920 when he went to England with his wife and two children. That he returned on March 18, 1921, and resided at Poona. From May 1, he was employed in Bombay while his wife remained at Poona and they last resided together at Poona. In Poona the respondent became familiar with the co-respondent and on various occasions committed adultery with him. On August 22, the respondent came to Bombay to the petitioner and on the 23rd left him to go away with the co-respondent who lef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom371; (1953)55BOMLR387; ILR1954Bom117
Bavdekar, J.(1) Criminal Application for Revision No. 642 of 1952 arises from the admitted transport by the applicant of 7 1/2 Bengali maunds of juwar from his own village of Khanjorili to Mandvi on April 8, 1951. Such a transport without a licence is prohibited by Clause 5 (1) of the Bombay Foodgraius (Regulation of Movement and Sale) Order, 1949. The applicant raised a defence that he was transporting the grain under a permit issued by a Revenue Patel. But it has been found that the Revenue Patel had no power to issue a permit for this transport of the grain. It is not contended before us that that finding is wrong. But the learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the applicant, challenges the conviction of the applicant on two grounds. He says that, in the first instance, in this case the learned Magistrate, who convicted the applicant, was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence, inasmuch as there was no report made by a public officer, as required by Section 11, Essentia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1891
Vaidya, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by one Balkishan A, Devidaval against whom Criminal Case No. 102/5/72 is pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court. Victoria Terminus, Bombay. The application involves important points under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. F. Act'') and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. U. P. Act').2. The above case arose out of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters before the Presidency Magistrate, at V. T., Bombay.3. The allegations in the said complaint may be briefly summarised as under:On November 21, 1970, the Assistant Security Officer, Central Railway, Bhusa-wal, intimated to the Chief Security Officer Bombay V. T. that two wagons Nos. ERKC-9447 Ex. HSPG BNDM to Akola and Wagon No. ERKC 75531 Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR197; 1978MhLJ425
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Appellant No. 1-original defendant No. 1-was the lessee of the plot belonging to, the Port Trust of Bombay-the respondent original plaintiff, since 1936, while appellant No, 2-defendant No. 2, is an assignee of the lease rights therein. Good many structures are raised by the lessees on this plot and sub-let to several others. On August 23, 1952 the Port Trust terminated the lease and filed Suit No. 2122 of 1953 for possession of the plot in the City Civil Court on October 5, 1953. The dispute, however, was settled out of the Court, and the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default on July 18, 1957. The Port Trust then instituted another Suit No. 1044 of 1963 on March 25, 1963 for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and taxes. This dispute also was settled and decree in terms of a consent memo was passed on March 15, 1966. This consent decree amongst others required the defendants (1) to pay enhanced rent at Rs. 465 per month instead of Rs. 100 per month from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR1036
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought from two decrees of December 22, 1930, made in the exercise of the Original jurisdiction conferred upon the Chief Court of Oudh by Section 7 of the Oudh Courts Act, 1925, an Act of the local legislature of the United Prolviinces of Agra and Oudh, By these decrees Nanavutty J., as trial Judge, after a protracted hearing, dismissed two suits (numbered respectively 11 and 12 of 1928), which had been instituted on November 2, 1928. The two suits were tried together, and one judgment was given covering the issues in both. They came on for hearing on July 15, 1929. Evidence both oral and documentary was adduced in great quantity ; the hearing continued until August 2, 1929, when the case was postponed until February 13, 1930 ; thereafter the case was heard on a number of dates in February, March and April of that year. Sixteen issues in one case and fourteen in the other had been framed, and in a lengthy judgment the learned Judge considered and dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR483
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent company prior to being wound up, as hereinafter mentioned, carried on the business of proprietors of sugar; mills in the Basti District of the United Provinces. The company was believed to have made some profits for the year ending May 30, 1940, but it was not until February 25, 1943, that an order for assessment of income-tax was made for the year of assessment 1941-42, and the tax was eventually fixed at Rs. 18,493-12-0. In the meantime, however, a petition to wind up the company had been presented on November 26, 1941, a provisional liquidator had been appointed on December 7, 1941, and finally, on April 17, 1942, a winding up order had been made by the High Court at Allahabad. It will be noticed therefore that the company had been ordered to be wound up a very considerable time before the assessment was made. On March 10, 1943, a notice of demand was served on the Official Liquidators of the respondent company under Section 29 of the Indian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom214
ORDER OF REFERENCE1. This petition raises the following important questions of Constitutional law of great public importance:--(a) Whether 'personal laws' are subject to Part III of the Constitution of India?(b) Whether the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the question as to whether the impugned provision of 'personal law' is in conformity with Constitution of India or notand is bound to enforce it as it is, even if it appears to he repugnant to one or other of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India?(c) Whether the provisions of Sunni Muslim 'Personal Law' sought to be enforced in the Courts of Law to the effect that a son is entitled to double the share than that of a daughter on inheritance is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?2. On or about 23rd April 1991, Mr. A. J. Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, presented this petition to me on behalf of Smt. Aminabai widow of Ismail Shaikh for being appointed as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR69; 1965MhLJ203
V.S. Desai, J.1. By these applications, the petitioners challenge Rule 15-A in Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Chapter XVII, in which the said rule1 appears, contains rules made by the High Court for dealing with the applications under the jurisdiction and powers conferred upon it by Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution. The impugned rule which was published in Part IV-C of the Maharashtra Government Gazette, Extraordinary, on July 2, 1964, is as follows:Rule 15-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1, 4 and 15 of this Chapter, applications under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under any enactment or out of the orders passed by any other authority or tribunal under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 or the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR675
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who was holding a post of a fitter and went on leave for two months. He rejoined at the end of the leave on May 21, 1954, and it appears that on May 23, 1954, he did not attend the Office on the ground that May 23, was a rest day for him. He did not subsequently resume his duties until May 28. On that date he produced a certificate from a railway doctor that he was fit to resume his duties, the certificate having been actually given by the doctor on May 27. A notice was then served upon him to show cause why because of certain conduct alleged to be misconduct, action should not be taken against him, the action mentioned being permanent reversion to the post of Basic Fitter in the grade of Rs. 35-60 per month. The notice also called upon him to show cause why any lesser penalty should not be inflicted. The petitioner gave his explanation and it appears that subsequently respondent No. 1, who is the D...
Tag this Judgment!