Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom196; (1943)45BOMLR384
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in rather peculiar circumstances.2. An application was made under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the validity of an arbitration agreement, which application was dismissed by Mr. Justice Kania sitting on the Original Side of this High Court. An appeal was brought from his order, but having regard to the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, which directs that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed under certain sections of the Act (and from no others), and having regard to the fact that Section 33 is not one of the sections mentioned in Section 39, this Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. But under Sub-clause (2) of Section 39 it is provided :Nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to His Majesty in Council.That proviso saves any existing right of appeal to His Majesty in Council, but clearly d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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
Reported in : (1946)48BOMLR116
Porter, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated December 2, 1941, by which the appellant was fined Rs. 1,000 for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926) in failing to obey an order made by the Acting Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes on September 4, 1939. The order had directed the appellant to furnish a statement of particulars of wakf property under Section 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 (IXLII of 1923), as amended by the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1935 (Bom. XVIII of 1935).2. Under that section it is provided that every mutawalli shall furnish to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property of which he is a mutawalli is situated a statement containing certain particulars. 3. By Section 5 every mutawalli is ordered to prepare and furnish to the Court to which such statement was furnished a full and true statement of accounts, containing certain prescribed particulars, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom370; (1947)49BOMLR160
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings and raises one short question of law under Section 59(1) (a) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (Bom. VII of 1925). The Urban Bank at Muddebihal obtained an award against the appellant and five other persons under Section 54 of the Societies Act. A dispute having arisen between the bank and the said persons it was referred for decision to a nominee of the Registrar, and the award in question was passed by him on September 21, 1930. Under the award the debtors were directed to pay Rs. 451-3-0 with future interest at 121/2 per cent. per year on Rs. 270. Under Section 59 (1) (a) a certificate was issued by the Registrar on October 25, 1930, and the bank put the said award into execution by filing darkhast No. 196 of 1932 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Muddebihal. This darkhast was filed on February 19, 1932, but since no steps were taken by the bank to pay the requisite process fee for the warrant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR534
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on July 19, 1944.2. On June 14, 1944, the High Court, on the application of the respondents, issued a rule nisi calling upon the appellant to show cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him 'as to by what authority he is exercising and performing or claiming to exercise or perform the powers and duties which may be performed or exercised by the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality.' By the said Order of July 19, 1944, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi. On December 14, 1944, the High Court ordered that the appellant's appeal to His Majesty in Council against the said Order of July 19, 1944, be admitted.3. The facts leading to the issue of the said orders of the High Court are simple. On June 9, 1944, His Excellency the Governor of Bengal, purporting to act under the powers conferred on him by Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR709
Leonard Stone, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated October 29, 1946, whereby he ordered that the respondent, i.e. the appellant in this Court, do pay into Court a fine of rupees one hundred for the contempt of this; Hon'ble Court committed by him in not obeying an interim order made on September 28, 1946, in having, in contravention of the said order, ordered and directed the Government representative Ramkrishna Dinanath Shirsat to make an inventory of the furniture and other articles in flat No. 13 of the second floor of the building called 'Rupayatan' situated at 69 Marine Drive, Bombay, and to lock up the flat by putting a lock upon the outer door of the said flat and 'driving out the people who might be in possession thereof.' It is further ordered that the respondent should pay to the petitioner his costs of the rule nisi and of the order as between attorney and client.2. That order was made upon a rule nisi issued by the learned Judge on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1948Bom272; (1948)50BOMLR49
M.C. Chagla, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The appellants are a joint stock company and they filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the defendants who were the plaintiffs' managing agents for a very long time, their agency having been terminated on November 21, 1940. In the suit various reliefs were claimed against the defendants. The one with which we are concerned related to certain lands at Jalgaon which stood in the name of the defendants and which the plaintiffs claimed to be of their ownership, having; been acquired according to them by the defendants as plaintiffs' agents and with the funds belonging to the plaintiffs. In respect of these lands the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they belonged to and were the property of the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no beneficial interest therein and also they asked for an order against the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom42; (1948)50BOMLR450
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to eject his tenant. The defendant has pleaded the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. At the hearing; of the suit before Mr. Justice Desai attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. of Bombay Act LVII of 1947 under which all pending suits relating to recovery or fixing of rent or possession of premises to which that Act applied had to be transferred to and continued before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It was then contended both by the plaintiff and the defendant that Sections 28, 29 and 50 of that Act were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature and were also repugnant to existing law and void and of no effect. Mr. Justice Desai directed that the plaint should be amended to make the necessary averments and that the Province of Bombay should be made a party to the suit. Consequently the plaint was amended and para, 2-A was added, containing the relevant averments and the Province of Bombay was made a party defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ492
ORDER1. The applicant, Haridas Damaji Awade, is a final LL. B. student in the Univer-sity College of Law, Nagpur. He is an Activ& worker and one of the chief organizers of the Samata Sainik Dal.2. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the Provincial Government, by a notification dated 10th February 1948, declared the said Dal as an unlawful association. By another notification it specified in a schedule the places which are used for the purpose of. unlawful association. Nagpur district was one of the places so mentioned.3. After I&'said Dal was declared unlawful, the applicant was detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, under Section 2(2), Central Provinces and Berar Public Safety Act 1947. The applicant is now detained under an order of detention passed by the Provincial Government on 9th March 1948 under Section 3(l)(a) of the Act. The detention is for a period of six months from 9th March 1948. The Provin-cial Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1955Bom55; (1954)56BOMLR955
1. (After setting out the contentions of the parties, his Lordship proceeded:) Now at the date when the suit was filed the defendants were nationals of what then was British India and resided in the British Indian territory, but since the partition of India defendants Nos. 1 to 9 have been residents of territory which is beyond the territory of the Union of India, and I will assume for the purpose of argument that defendants Nos. 1 to 9 are not. residents of the Union of India and may be regarded as non-resident foreigners qua this Court. Again, when the suit was filed some of the properties belonging to the institution were in British India and some were outside British India. Even though the charity was outside the country, the trustees were residing in British India and the management of the trust was also carried on in British India. Since the suit was filed, however, the position of the parties qua this Court has been fundamentally altered. Not only is the charity a foreign charit...
Tag this Judgment!