Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom36; (1965)67BOMLR85
Kotval, J.(1) The petitioner claims to be the owner of a piece of land and measuring 2 Gunthas 5 annas, out of S. No. 29A at Juhu. The land originally belonged to her husband, and after his death she claim to have succeeded to it be virtue of a will. The respondents have not admitted her title but the questions is hardly material of the points raised in the present petition.(2) On 2nd May 1942, this piece of land was requisitioned for a purposes of the Union under R. 75A (1) of the then existing Defense of India Rules. The notifications (Ex.1) stated that it was required for military purposes, and it has down now been explained that it was required by for the constructions of a road leadings to the military aerodrome at juhu during the to period of the emergency occasioned by the last war. The owner of the plot was receiving the usual compensation for requisitioning until 29-12-1952, when a notifications was issued under S. 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquistion of Immovable property A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom304
1. This a petition for the issue of a direction, writ or order restraining the State of Bombay from enforcing the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Rules and Resolutions passed thereunder in respect of a preparation known as Hall's Wine. Petitioner are the sole agents of Hall's Wine in India and petitioner 2 is the Managing Director of Petitioners 1 who are private Limited Company, and petitioner 2 states in his petition that he buys, possesses and consumes tor the purposes of his Health Hall's Wine. 2. In order to appreciate the questions that arise for determination on this petition, it would be convenient at the outset to set out shortly the provisions of the prohibition law of the State, the challenge partially successful to that law in the Courts, subsequent amendments in the law designed to give effects to the decisions of the Courts and the Rules made and the Resolutions passed in pursuance of the law. Now, the Bombay Prohibition Act is a pre-Constitution Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom278; (1927)29BOMLR498
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The first and principal question of the five questions submitted to this Full Bench is : 'Whether a suit brought by a mortgagee of land to enforce his mortgage by sale is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.' It will be noticed that the question has been deliberately confined to enforcing a mortgage by sale. That is the relief asked for in the present suit, and that is the relief ordinarily asked for on the Original Side. Indeed it was even said during the hearing that many Judges in this Court have refused to grant foreclosure at all. And personally I do not remember any case in which I was asked to pass a foreclosure decree, although I must have had hundreds of mortgage suits before me at various times during the last ten years.2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent runs as follows :-And we do further ordain that the, said High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1060
Marten, J.1. This is a suit by the Advocate General ex-officio to establish certain charities in the community of the Dawoodi Borahs, who are Shiah Mahomedans of the Mustaalian Branch of the Ismaili sect. The principal defendant is defendant No. 3, His Holiness the Mullaji Saheb, who is the High Priest and Dai or head of the community. Defendants Nos, 1 and 2 merely claim to be his managers or agents, and are of minor importance in this suit.2. The charity is denied. The contest largely turns on the exceptional position and powers which are claimed for the Mullaji Saheb, and as to how far they can be recognised and enforced in a Court of law consistently with the general law of the land. This in its turn involves a close investigation of the religious tenets of the community.3. The suit relates to (a) a mosque building in Bohra Musjid street, (b) the tomb of Seth Chandabhoy Currimbhoy and the offerings placed there in a gulla or offertory box, (c) four immoveable properties purchased o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.701
Davar, J.1. The seven plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Parsi community of Bombay. They profess the Zoroastrian religion. The five defendants are also members of the same community and profess the same religion.2. The Parsis in India are descendants of a body of Persians who wore, about 1200 years ago, compelled to leave their Fatherland owing to religious persecution at the hands of the Mahomedans. This body of Persians, after taking refuge in Kohistan and afterwards in the Isle of Ormus, eventually made their home in India, and at the present time Bombay is their principal headquarters.3. Since their advent into India they have continued to follow the religion of their forefathers, and wherever they have settled in any appreciable numbers they have built for themselves Atash Behrams, Agiaries, and Dare Mehers for the performance of their religious worship and the observance of their religious rites and ceremonies and erected Dokhmas for the disposal of their dead according to...
Tag this Judgment!