Nirav Shah - Advocate

11/09/2018

16/08/2017

In 1947, when India got its Independence from British rule, Sir Leonard Stone was the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. His tenure lasted for 5 years until he resigned at the stroke of midnight on August 14.

On that night, with an audience comprising members of the Original Side, Appellate Side Bar, Solicitors, Officers and the entire staff of the high court gathered in the Central Court at 11.35 pm.

Chief Justice Stone addressed the gathering and at 11.59 pm, he requested the gathering to stand in silent prayer for a minute. At the stroke of 12, he unfurled the National Flag on the flag post and simultaneously, a larger flag was hoisted on the flag staff of the high court building outside.

With this, Sir Leonard Stone became the last British Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. He was succeeded by Justice MC Chagla, the first Indian Chief Justice of the high court.

On the 70th anniversary of India’s Independence, let us have a brief look at some of the important judgments passed in 1947.

Judgments

AIR 1947 BOM 209
Janardhan Karandikar vs Ramchandra Tilak

In this particular case before the bench of then Chief Justice Sir Leonard Stone and Sir Harilal Jekisundas Kania, the appellant was sued for libel. It was contended that he had published an article in Marathi newspaper Kesari, which was defamatory of the respondent. The defence was taken that there was no malice to cause harm to the respondent and the alleged article was written on privileged occasion without malice.

What was held: To prove libel, malice is required to be proved. Malice means indirect motive of libel. Honest belief is protected. Mere want of sound judgment is also no evidence of malice. The article must be read as a whole to decide whether it is accentuated by malice or not.

AIR 1947 BOM 193
Laxmikant Shripat vs CR Gerrard

A student, who published an article against the principal of his school, was expelled on the ground of breach of discipline of the school. He filed a petition challenging this expulsion. The case was decided by Justice JB Blagden.

What was held: The publication of an article by the student criticising the principal of the school is against the discipline of the school. Therefore, the decision taken by the school authorities is correct.

AIR 1947 BOM 82
Ranchandra Mulchand vs Bhagwan Gopal

The plaintiff challenged the alienation of the joint family property which was made without legal necessity. This case was heard and decided by Justice MC Chagla.

What was held: If the coparcener alienates a portion of the ancestral property without legal necessity, the alienation is bad under Hindu Law. Other coparcener can challenge such alienation if such alienation goes beyond the share of the coparcener who had alienated the property without legal necessity.

AIR 1947 BOM 86
Ladhuram Manormal vs Chimniram Dongardas

In this matter before the bench of Justice Sir Albert SR Macklin & Justice GS Rajadhyaksha, the plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of the premises let to his tenant for non-payment of rents. The suit was compromised on the condition that the defendant will pay the arrears of the rent by a certain date, failing which the lease would be forfeited and the plaintiff will have a right of re-entry. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rent amount. An ex*****on petition was filed. During the ex*****on, the defendant filed an application to protect his right.

What was held: The lessee can make an application for relief against forfeiture even in a proceeding of ex*****on of decree.

AIR 1947 BOM 4
Sitaram Motiram vs Trimbak Ramchandra

The plaintiff, being the owner of land situated on a lower level, filed a suit against the upper land owner for damages and contended that the defendant collected water in his land and discharged it into the plaintiff's land. The case was decided by the bench of Justice NS Lokur.

What was held: The upper land owner is using his land in the natural way by draining it for agriculture purpose. The plaintiff would have a right of easement if the owner of upper level used his land in an unnatural way by collecting water on his land and discharging it on the land on the lower level in an injurious manner and, thus, adversely affecting the land of the lower land owner.

28/06/2017

With many teachers not reporting promptly to duty, with concentration on their side businesses, even God cannot save Government School students, especially rural students. There is no use in opening English medium sections without revamping the system in toto,” the bench said.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday lamented the sad state of affairs at government schools and observed that government school teachers placing their children in private schools evidences the dismal state of teaching in government schools.

“The very fact that the Government teachers are admitting their children in private schools indicates that the standard of teaching should be high in the private schools, which the teachers themselves fail to give to their own students in the Government schools,” Justice N. Kirubakaran observed.

“Unless, teachers are committed to teach the students, our future would not be bright. With many of teachers not reporting promptly to duty, with concentration on their side businesses, even God cannot save Government School students, especially rural students. There is no use in opening English medium sections without revamping the system in toto,” the Judge added.

The court is hearing a petition filed by government-aided Pasupathy Aided Middle School, Pandanallur, Thanjavur district, challenging rejection of its application by the school education department secretary for starting English medium sections.

The school has alleged discrimination against government aided private schools when compared to government schools, in matters of granting permission to introduce English medium sections. It further brought to the notice of the court that such government schools were not employing new qualified teachers in their English medium sections.

Taking note of the submission, the court observed, “If it is true, the very purpose of starting English medium sections would be frustrated… it seems appropriate hands are not employed by the Government in English medium sections. Without appointing and having proper, well-trained teachers with English knowledge, imparting English to the students would not be achieved.”

The court opined that it is the attitude of teachers working in government schools that has led to the downfall of the quality of education imparted in these institutions. It went on to suggest that the government may consider involving voluntary organisations, NGOs and private players in running/ managing/ administering government schools in the rural areas, in order to improve the quality of education.