Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR443
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Court of India, dated May 8, 1942, by which the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated February 27, 1941, dismissing appeals by the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, IV Class, Sialkot, dated July 22, 1940, 'were set aside and the case sent back to the High Court with a direction for the framing of proper issues and the remittal of the case to the trial Court for further trial and decision.2. The only question in this appeal is whether, and, if so, to what extent, Section 5 of the Punjab Alienation of Land (Second Amendment) Act, 1938, Punjab Act X of 1938, is rendered invalid by Section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as being ultra vires of the Punjab Provincial Legislature. The Punjab Act of 1938, which may be conveniently referred to as the impugned Act, by Section 5 purported to insert a new Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR708
George Rankin, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. It is brought by the Oudh Commercial Bank, Ltd., Fyzabad, against an order of the Chief Court of Oudh dated August 14, 1934, dismissing an application for the execution of a final decree for sale passed on January 22, 1916, by the Subordinate Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. The respondents are the representatives of Babu Narindra Bahadur Singh (herein called the 'judgment-debtor') who died in 1936 while the present appeal was pending.2. He was the grantor of a mortgage to the appellants dated September 2, 1894, for Rs. 2,35,000 at eight per cent. per annum over a large number of ancestral properties including both proprietary (kham) and under-proprietary (pukhtadari) villages. To enforce this mortgage a suit was brought against him by the appellants in 1911 and a preliminary decree for sale obtained on October 31, 1912, from the Subordinate Judge. On appeal to the Judicial Commissioner's Court this preliminary decree was on June 15, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom440; (1927)29BOMLR742
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after stating the facts as above, proceeded :] It is argued by the learned Government Pleader that one of the offences, namely, that under Section 414, was a cognizable offence and therefore the investigation was legal, and even if the case be considered as relating to non-cognizable offences, the report of the Police should be considered as a complaint under Clause (a) of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if it did not fall under Clause (b) of Section 190. It. appears that the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code mentioned as one of the offences in the charge-sheet is a cognizable offence, and the investigation by the Sub-Inspector in respect of the other non-cognizable offences could not be illegal if they were also investigated during the investigation of the cognizable offences. See the case of In re Venkanna A.I.R. [1925] Mad. 856. As no offence under Section 414 is either alleged or proved to have been committed by the accused i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1939Bom354; (1939)41BOMLR787
Broomfield, J.1. First Appeal No. 95 of 1936 is an appeal against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, awarding the plaintiff Rs. 5,044 in respect of arrears of maintenance. The facts leading to the litigation were shortly these. The plaintiff's husband Ambalal, who was a wealthy and pious Hindu, died on July 27, 1929, leaving properties immoveable and moveable which have been described in a schedule annexed to the plaint. They consisted of lot No. 1 a large residential house in Jamalpur, Ahmedabad, containing several buildings in one com lot No. 2 a shop forming a portion of the above, lot No. 3 a building, and lot No. 4 a dehla also situated in Jamalpur, lot No. 5 a building known as the Apangashram or Cripples' Home which was constructed by Ambalal in his lifetime on land belonging to the temple of Shri Jagannathji, and lot No. 6 a building on the Richey Road, Ahmedabad, in which Ambalal in his lifetime had started a dispensary. The moveable properties consisted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR894
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a division bench of the High Court of Bombay cancelling a writ of prohibition issued by Coyajee J. against the Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute between the Western India Automobile Association and its workers had been referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947.2. Though a number of points were raised before Coyajee J. and before the division bench, the principal question raised by this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act to entertain the dispute which had been referred to it. The controversy is firstly as to the scope of the Act, i.e., whether the Act has application to cases of private employers or is limited only to cases where either the Central or the Provincial Government, or a local authority is the employer, and secondly, as to whether the dispute as to reinstatement of certain dismissed employees is a matter which is referable to the Tribunal.3. On an app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1941)43BOMLR834
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court. The accused was charged under Section 128 of the City of Bombay Police Act with having disobeyed an externment order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police under Section 27(2A) of the Act. The accused admitted the making of the order, its service upon him, and his return to Bombay within the time prohibited by the order. But the learned Magistrate, quite rightly, refused to accept a plea of guilty, without considering the question whether the externment order passed by the Commissioner of Police was a valid order. He held that it was not a valid order and accordingly acquitted the accused.2. Sub-section (2A) of Section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act was added by amendment in the year 1936, and is in these terms:(2A). It shall be further competent to the Commissioner of Police to direct any person who, not having been born in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1924Bom390; (1924)26BOMLR395
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the decision of the Division Court on November 23, 1921, refusing to excuse the delay of the applicants in the presentation of their petition for a certificate of appeal to the Privy Council. The learned Judges who constituted the Court disagreed as to whether the delay should be excused. Accordingly under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed, which was to the effect that the delay should not be excused. Consequently it became unnecessary to decide whether the certificate should be granted. I should state that one consolidated rule had been granted both in the above application to excuse delay and in the above petition for a certificate. They were respectively Civil Applications No. 615 of 1921 and No. 681 of of 1921, and both of them were before the Division Court Similarly the present appeal before us is headed in both the above applications, although that does not appear fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom412; (1936)38BOMLR808; 165Ind.Cas.1001
Broomfield, J.1. In the suit from which these appeals arise the plaintiffs are the managers of a temple called Shri Mahableshwar of Gokarn. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are members of a committee called the Kumta Dharma-dav Committee and as such they hold and manage a fund called ' Dharma-dav Fund ', which is collected for the benefit of a number of religious and charitable institutions in the neighbourhood of Kumta. Part of this fund has been set apart for the benefit of the Shri Mahableshwar temple and some land has been purchased out of this part of the fund. The plaintiffs brought the suit alleging that the defendants are the trustees of the fund, and that they have been guilty of a breach of trust. The reliefs prayed for are possession of the land purchased out of the fund and recovery of the rest of the amount due to the temple after taking accounts of the fund from the beginning.2. The trial Court has made a preliminary decree awarding the plaintiffs possession of the land with mesne ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom101
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C. in respect of two persons against whom orders have been made under the Foreigners Act. The two persons are Mr. and Mrs. Raab, and it is the case of the Crown that out of them Mr. Raab was, before an order was issued by the Maharaja of Baroda conferring upon him the status of a subject of the Baroda State, a naturalized subject of the Republic of Costa Rica and Mrs. Raab was a Czechoslovak. It is not in dispute that on 8th November 1947, His Highness the Maharaja of Baroda passed an order recognising Mr. Raab as a Baroda State subject, and it is not disputed before us that, if this was a valid order in its inception and is still a valid order, then in that case Mr. and Mrs. Raab will be both subjects of the Baroda State, Mr. Raab, because of the order, and Mrs. Raab because of the provision of international law by which a wife attains the status, as far as nationality is concerned, of her husband. It appears fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom93; (1948)50BOMLR614
Tendolkar, J.1. These are several petitions presented by different parties for writs of certiorari in respect of orders of requisition passed under Ordinance No. V of 1947, being the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947. A common question of law of considerable importance arises in these petitions, namely, whether the Governor of Bombay had any authority to promulgate the Ordinance, and, therefore, my learned brother Coyajee J. directed that notice should be given to the Dominion of India, and the Advocate General of India has appeared before me on behalf of the Dominion of India. I decided to try this question as a preliminary issue in these matters and I have heard parties thereon. The matter arises in this way:2. Ordinance No. V of 1947 is made under the authority conferred on the Provincial Legislature to enact laws with respect to requisition of land by a notification of the Governor General of India being the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No, F311-47-C. & ...
Tag this Judgment!