Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-09-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Bom229; (1952)54BOMLR94; ILR1952Bom570
Bavdekar, J. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Shah J., on appeal from an order refusing to sat aside an award. It is necessary to stale the facts, because a preliminary point has been taken before us that Shah J. having dismissed the appeal, no appeal lies now under the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of this Court.[2] Now, an appeal lies to a Division Bench of this Court from a judgment of a single Judge under the Letters Patent; but it is contended on behalf of the respondents that this right of appeal given by the Letters Patent is taken away by the provisions of Section 39, Arbitration Act. That section provides: 'An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to bear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order : An order: (i) superseding an arbitration ;(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case ;(in) modifying or correcting an award ;(iv) filing or refusing to file an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-16-1951
Reported in : AIR1951Bom147; (1951)53BOMLR556; ILR1952Bom344
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Shah J., by which he set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks & directed the Registrar to register the mark of the petitioners as a trade mark. The petitioners applied on 12-1-1943, to the Registrar of Trade Marks for the registration of their mark in connection with cotton sewing thread. There was an opposition by the appellants & the Registrar came to the conclusion that the mark which the respondents sought to register was likely to deceive & cause confusion & therefore he refused to register the mark. From this decision of his an appeal was preferred to the High Court, &, as I just said, Shah J. after hearing the appeal came to the conclusion that the Registrar was wrong & that the respondents were entitled to have their trade mark registered.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Desai that this appeal is not competent. The judgment of Shah J., is subject to appeal provided it constitutes a judgment within th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Bom365; (1952)54BOMLR330
Chagla, C.J.(1) This appeal raises a very interesting and important question as to the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Justice Shah took the view that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the plaintiff's suit, and on that ground he dismissed it. It is from that order of dismissal that the plaintiff has come in appeal before us.(2) A preliminary observation may be not out of place as to the manner in which issues as to jurisdiction should be tried. Mr. M. V. Desai has made a grievance that the learned Judge took the view that an issue with regard to jurisdiction is always an issue of law and must be tried as a preliminary issue. I do not think that this grievance is fully justified. As I read the judgment, the learned Judge has tried this issue as an issue of law because, for the purpose of his decision, he has assumed that all the facts averred by the plaintiff in his plaint are proved, and, therefore, this issue has been tried on a demurrer.Now, it is open to a Court to take the view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Bom122; (1952)54BOMLR11; ILR1952Bom514
Chagla, C.J.[1] The question that we have to consider in this Full Bench is whether the time that elapses between the pronouncement of the judgment and the signing of the decree should be excluded under Section 12(2), Limitation Act, and it it is to be excluded whether it should be excluded wholly or should be excluded under certain limitations. The facts that give rise to that Full Bench may be briefly stated. The trial Court delivered its judgment in Ahmedabad on 1.5.1918. The decree was signed on 29-6-1918. The plaintiffs filed the appeal to the District Court on 4.8.1948, and the question that arose was whether the appeal was in time. The learned District Judge took the view that the appeal wag out of time and the same view was taken by Dixit J. in second appeal. Dixit J. gave leave under the Letters Patent and the matter came before a Divisional Bench which referred the question to a Full Bench. A further fact may be stated which is also material that the plaintiffs applied in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-12-1951
Reported in : AIR1952Bom106; (1951)53BOMLR883; ILR1952Bom226
Bhagwati, J.[1] This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Chainani J. delivered in Second Appeals No. 608 of 1948 and 1110 of 1943 against the judgment of the lower appellate Court constituted by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Poona, (with appellate powers), who allowed the appeal against the decision of the learned Extra Joint Civil Judge, Poona, dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The facts which led to the filing of the suit may be shortly stated as under. [2] One Mahadev Gadre, had two sons Balkrishna and Govind, Balkrishna was the elder son, but he was spiritually inclined and almost renounced this world. He bad a son Trimbak alias Bapurao, and Trimbak had two sons, Martand and Janardan. Govind wag a pleader. The joint family of Mahadev Gadre, Balkriehna and Govind flourished and owned large movable and immovable properties. They also carried on a money-lending business in which large capital wag invested. After the death of Mahadev Gadre, both the brothers...
Tag this Judgment!