Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-27-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819
Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-27-1942
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
Decided on : Nov-17-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Bom150; (1943)45BOMLR281
Broomfield, J.1. This case comes for consideration by a full bench on a certificate from the Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent.2. Two accused persons Banubai Ardeshir Irani alias Laxmibai and Motiram Chaitram Kohli, were tried by Mr. Justice N.J. Wadia and a common jury at the Third Sessions of 1941. The charges against them were :-First :-That you on or about October 22, 1939, at Bombay imported into. British India from Persia, a country outside India, a girl named Sarwarbai under twenty-one years of age, with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person and aided and abetted each other in the commission of the said offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 366B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the High Court.Secondly :-That you art or about October 22, 1939, at Bombay obtained possession of a girl named Sarwarbai under eighteen years of age with intent that the said Sarwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-05-1942
Reported in : AIR1942Bom268; (1942)44BOMLR534
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Wassoodew.2. The appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the Courts below, is the inamdar of the village of Nevare in the Sholapur district. On November 4, 1918,. his father, who was then inamdar, executed a document, exhibit 39, by which he purported to grant to the plaintiffs a perpetual tenancy of certain land in the village on condition that they were to pay the assessment and local fund. It is not disputed that the terms of this document are such that they would! create a permanent tenancy, but unfortunately it was not registered and therefore under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, it cannot affect the property or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. The plaintiffs, however, entered upon the land by reason of this document and held possession under it until 1936 when the appellant forcibly dispossessed them. They then sued to recover possession and...
Tag this Judgment!