Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-31-1944
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR529
Divatia, J.1. This revisional application has been referred to us for decision on two points arising under the Defence of India Act. The facts shortly are that the petitioner was charged with and convicted of the offence of purchasing from a merchant eleven bundles of copper wires weighing 545 seers for Rs. 2,445 on April 18, 1943, without a permit under the ' Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1942.' The relevant provisions of Clause 6 of the said Order are that no person shall acquire more than twenty lbs. of copper wire in one calendar month without obtaining a permit from the Controller. This Order is issued by the Central Government under the Defence of India Rule 81(2)(a), which enacts that the Central Government, so far as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India or the efficient prosecution of the War, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, may by order provide, among other things, for regulati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-14-1944
Reported in : AIR1945Bom200; (1945)47BOMLR27
Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. On the hearing of Second Appeal No. 549 of 1941 Mr. Justice Lokur and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha having found a conflict of authorities about the interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, read with Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, referred the following question for the decision of a full bench:Having regard to Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, is the plaintiff in a suit governed by Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for the purpose of limitation entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act?2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows. On March 6, 1929, the original three defendants passed a promissory note for Rs. 1,200 in favour of the plaintiff. On August 11, 1932, defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff which was contended to be an acknowledgment of the liability under the promissory note. Relying on that letter, the plaintiff filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1944
Reported in : AIR1945Bom88; (1944)46BOMLR877
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The facts pertinent to this appeal lie within a comparatively narrow compass. The respondent is the landlord, and the appellant the tenant of certain premises whereon he conducts the business of a boarding and lodging hotel. The lease of the premises having expired on March 1, 1943, the appellant sought to hold over, but the respondent brought this action for possession. To that claim the appellant set up the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, which Order, as it then stood, only protected premises let for the purposes of residence. The action originally came before Mr. Justice Blagden on June 29, 1943, when he made an order for possession, on the ground that the premises were not let for the purposes of residence. Against that order the present appellant appealed, and that appeal came before the Chief Justice, Sir John Beaumont, and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha, on August 19, 1943. They reversed the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below, holding that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-30-1944
Reported in : AIR1945Bom1; (1944)46BOMLR768
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have to determine, though raising a short point, is not free from difficulty, and arises by reason of the fact that the Governor of Bombay, who has now assumed all the powers vested by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, in the Provincial Government, has been pleased to make the Increase of Court-fees Act, 1943.2. That Act, which possesses the merit of brevity, in Section 1 states its name, and that it extends to the whole of the Province of Bombay, and provides that it shall come into force on January 1, 1944, and shall cease to have effect on such date as shall be appointed.3. Sections 2 and 3 are as follows : 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court-fees Act, 1870, (VII of 1870), in its application to the Province of Bombay (hereinafter called the principal Act)?, all fees leviable under the principal Act shall be increased by a surcharge at the rates specified in the schedule annexed hereto.3. The provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-22-1944
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR612
Russell, J.1. The point for decision on this appeal from the High Court at Allahabad is short, but not free from difficulty. The relevant facts which gave rise to it must first be stated.2. One Seth Kashi Nath obtained a decree (in a Suit No. 42 of 1930) against the present respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6, and one Lala Sagarmal. Lala Sagarmal is dead, and his sons, the present respondents Nos. 4 and 5, were substituted for him on the record in the present suit. Respondent No. 6 has been declared insolvent and the Official Receiver, Algiers, has also been brought on the record in the present suit. For convenience the original defendants to suit No. 42 of 1930 or those representing their interests from time to time will all be included in the words the debtors.3. Seth Kashi Nath having obtained his decree applied to attach certain immovable property as being the property of the debtors and liable to be sold in execution of the decree. He was met by an objection filed on behalf of the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-06-1944
Reported in : AIR1946Bom174
Lokur, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the Mamlatdar, taluka Jalgaon, representing the Court of Wards, on behalf of Messrs. Bhagirath Ramchandra & Co., of which the present owner and vahiwatdar is Shivnarayan Bhagirath Shet. In 1927 the plaintiff company was appointed the managing agents of the Bhagirath Spinning, Weaving and ., Jalgaon, hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Mills company. The Mills company having fallen into financial difficulties, a scheme for its reconstruction was submitted to and sanctioned by the High Court on 11th January 1932. In accordance with that scheme, the plaintiff company surrendered its managing agency to the defendant company for a period of fifteen years on condition that it should be paid a quarter of the commission earned by the defendant company from the managing agency. The Mills company went into liquidation in February 1935 and during that interval the defendant company is said to have earned a commission of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-09-1944
Reported in : AIR1945Bom11; (1944)46BOMLR752
Chagla, J.1. On February 4, 1937, the plaintiff applied to the first defendant company for the issue ofan endowment life policy for Rs. 2,000 on the joint lives of himself and his wife. The proposal was accepted, and a policy was issued on April 8, 1937. The plaintiff's wife died on January 14, 1940.2. On August 15, 1937, the plaintiff assigned the policy to defendant No. 2 who forwarded it to the first defendant company for registration, and the assignment was duly registered by the first defendant company on February 8, 1940. On the face of it this assignment is absolute in form,; but it is clear that it was intended only to be by way of security. On March 14,1941, defendant No. 2 informed the first defendant company that his claim in respect of the policy was restricted to his interest in the policy money as the first mortgagee in respect of the moneys advanced by him on the security of the policy. But, as I shall presently point out, it makes no difference to the position in law wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-21-1944
Reported in : AIR1945Cal402
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, acquitting two persons, D.B. Futnani and A.V. Joshi of offences under Rule 75A (7) and 46(3), Defence of India Rules. The prosecution case is that D.B. Futnani is a partner of the firm of Murlimal Santram and Co., having its Head Office at Lachmidass Street, Karachi, and A.V. Joshi is the Calcutta Manager or representative of the Firm, having his office at 20 Muharshi Debendra Road, Calcutta. Application for a licence to import 25 tons of barbed wire from America was made by the firm in Karachi to the Steel Controller, Calcutta, by Ex. 1, signed in the firm name, the writing having been proved by the handwriting expert (P.W. 2) to be the hand of Futnani. Import licence No. 4216 was duly issued by the Deputy Steel Controller on 3rd November, and was received by Major Thomas (P.W. 7), Deputy Controller of Purchase, along with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-08-1944
Reported in : AIR1944Cal339
Lodge, J.1. This is an appeal from convictions and sentences under Section 304 (2), Penal Code, read with Section 34. The four appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge of Pabna and Bogra and a common jury. There was a charge under Section 304/34 against all four appellants, and a separate charge under Section 324, Penal Code, against appellant Ibra Akanda. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 304 (2)/34, Penal Code, against all four appellants, and of not guilty in respect of the separate charge under Section 324, Penal Code, against Ibra Akanda. The learned Judge agreed with and accepted this verdict; he acquitted Ibra Akanda of the charge under Section 324, Penal Code, and convicted all four accused on the remaining charge. He sentenced Ibra and Rayis, appellants, under Section 304 (2)/34, Penal Code, each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; and in view of the age of the one and the youth of the other, he sentenced Abad and Josi under Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-25-1944
Reported in : AIR1945Mad47
1. The main question arising for decision in this second appeal is whether the provisions of Section 33A(1) of Act 39 of 1923, the Succession Act apply to this case so as to benefit the appellant to the extent of property worth Rs. 5000. The appellant is the widow of one Arulandu Nadan who was an Indian Christian. He died in the year 1936 leaving his widow defendant 1, a sister the plaintiff, a brother defendant 2 and two daughters by a deceased sister, defendants 3 and 4. The property left by the deceased Arulandu Nadan is stated in the plaint to be worth Rs. 6725-14-0. The plaintiff conceded that defendant 1 was entitled exclusively to Rs. 5000 and interest thereon. Deducting this sum she claimed a sixth in the balance and that was mentioned to be Rs. 159-13-10-2/3. It was also stated that defendants 3 and 4 who were her sister's daughters were entitled to a like sum of Rs. 159-13-10-2/3. Defendant 2 was stated to be also entitled to a similar sum and the balance of the excess was st...
Tag this Judgment!