Advanced Search Results
Dhondi Tukaram Vs. Dadoo Piraji and ors.
Mumbai
Dec-08-1952
Tenancy
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9 and 100; ;Tenancy Law; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 29, 29(1), 29(2), 29(4), 70, 85, 85(1), 89 and 89(2); Land Revenue Code - Sections 83; Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act; Bombay General Clauses Act - Sections 7; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1939
AIR1954Bom100a; (1953)55BOMLR663
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
ORDERShah, J.1. It is true that an inference as to permanent tenancy is a mixed question of law and fact and could foe raised in second appeal. But the facts found from which the inference in...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGovind Dipaji More Vs. State
Mumbai
Dec-15-1955
Criminal
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 392, 397 and 398
AIR1956Bom353; 1956CriLJ700
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
Vyas, J.1. The appellant Govind Dipaji More has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code and he has been...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskPetro Antonio Luciano Sequeira and anr. Vs. Goolbai Nadirshaw and anr.
Mumbai
Feb-09-1953
Property
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 58; Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Sections 41
AIR1954Bom81; (1953)55BOMLR739; ILR1953Bom1153
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
ORDER1. A very interesting question arises in this revision application with regard to the right, of a mortgagee under an English mort-.gage to enforce his right of possession against the mortgagor. It appears that the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Digambar Gopal MaraThe Vs. Vithoba Jogu Hagir
Mumbai
Aug-23-1951
Tenancy
Tenancy Laws; Bombay Tenancy Act, 1946 - Sections 4, 4(1) and 5(2); Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 84; Small Holders Act
AIR1952Bom274; (1952)54BOMLR236
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
Vyas, J. [1] This second appeal arises out of a decision of the Assistant Judge, Satara, by which he allowed au appeal of the original defendant, against whom a decree for possession was passed by the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJainabbibi Vs. Shankar Sakharam
Mumbai
Dec-16-1949
PropertyCivil
Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 19
AIR1951Bom255; (1950)52BOMLR858; ILR1951Bom57
H.C. Coyajee and ;K.B. Sukhtankar, Advs.
Weston, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of his suit by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana. The suit was to recover an amount of Rs. 18,000 claimed due on two...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskLomeshprasad Hariprasad Desai Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Mumbai
Jul-12-1954
Election
Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 - Sections 11(1), 12, 12(2), 12(4) and 12(5); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 3, Rules 4 and 4(2)
AIR1955Bom159; (1954)56BOMLR1107; ILR1955Bom146
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
Chagla, C.J.1. The election for councillors to the Baroda Borough Municipality was held on 17-2-1954. The nominations for this election had to be filed by 19-1-1954. Opponent No. 2 filed his nomination on that day. The...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGovind Krishna and ors. Vs. Malhar Narsingrao Nadgu
Mumbai
Dec-03-1953
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 179, 182 and 182(5); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 73 - Order 21, Rules 11, 11(2), 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 - Order 30, Rule 9 - Order 34, Rule 6; Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act - Sections 47
AIR1954Bom410; (1954)56BOMLR485; ILR1954Bom897
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv. for ;D.R. Manerikar, Adv.
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Shah because it raises apoint of limitation on which there is apparently a conflict in the reported decisions of this Court. The...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskDigambar Gopal Vs. Vithoba Jogu
Mumbai
Apr-10-1953
Tenancy
Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 - Sections 2(A), 3, 4, 4(1) and 5(2); Tenancy Law; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
AIR1954Bom450; (1954)56BOMLR385; ILR1954Bom671
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
Bavdekar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment in a suit for ejectment.2. It appears from the evidence that the appellant plaintiff terminated the contractual tenancy by a notice given to the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskVishwanath Vithoba Vs. Genu Kisan and ors.
Mumbai
Jan-17-1956
Family
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65 and 66; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 144
AIR1956Bom555
K.B. Sukhtankar and ;P.G. Kher, Advs.
Chainani, J. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2. The parties are related to each other as shown In the following pedigree: RAMJI GHOLAP | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Gyanuji Vithoba Bhausaheb Maruti...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskState Vs. Atmaram Vaikunth Bhende
Mumbai
Feb-28-1956
Criminal
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 477A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 32 and 423
AIR1956Bom671; 1956CriLJ1195
K.B. Sukhtankar, Adv.
Chainani, J.1. In this case, the accused has been convicted under Section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, on three charges and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›