Mumbai Court August 1922 Judgments
Vasu Krishna Yekavda Vs. Madhavrao Moreshwar Bhadanekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1160; 73Ind.Cas.880
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The point arising in this appeal is very simple. The facts are that the defendant effected a simple mortgage of his one-third share in the Khata. The mortgage is said to have been paid off on November 5, 1917, and the Khot filed the present suit in 1918, to claim the right which accrued to him under Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act, as amended by the Acts of 1912 and 1913. In virtue of the provisions of Section 9, as amended, the interest of the occupancy tenant is heritable but not transferable without the consent of the Khot. The exception laid down in that section does not apply to the facts of the present case, and under Section 10 'if the occupant does any act purporting to transfer his land or any portion thereof or any interest therein without the consent of the Khot, his land shall be at the disposal of the Khot as Khoti land free of all incumbrances, other than the liens or charges created or existing in favour of Government.' That is the pr...
Tag this Judgment!The National Bank of India Vs. the National Bank of Indore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom119; (1922)24BOMLR1181
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to restrain the defendants from carrying on business under the name. 'The National Bank of Indore, Limited' or any other name which is a colorable imitation of the name of the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs are a limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom and have for the last fifty years and upwards carried on business of banking in India and other part of the world on a very extensive scale and have during such time obtained a very high reputation and earned the confidence of all classes of the community in India and in other places. The plaintiffs have several branches in India and other places of which a list is given in Ex. G. The plaintiff bank is an Exchange Bank and besides the usual banking business it imports and sells gold bars stamped with the name 'National Bank of India' in English as well as in the vernacular of the place where the branches of the plaintiff bank sell bar gold (see Ex. D). These bars are known as the National Bank bar gold...
Tag this Judgment!Mulji Purshottam Thakkar Vs. Goverdhandas Tribhuvandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom36; (1922)24BOMLR1291; 76Ind.Cas.148
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on the Original Side of the High Court. It was an ex parte decree. The defendant was described in those proceedings as a cloth merchant. Though the summons of the suit was served upon the defendant, he did not appear to contest the suit. The decree was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Bhivandi for execution. In the execution proceedings the judgment-debtor made an application under Section 20 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act for instalments contending that he was an agriculturist. The application was first rejected cm the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application, and that the application should have been made to the High Court which passed the decree. That view, however, was not accepted in appeal by the District Judge, and for the purposes of the present proceedings, it mu...
Tag this Judgment!Satappa Jakappa Kochcheri Vs. Annappa Basappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom82; (1922)24BOMLR1284; 76Ind.Cas.115
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 2,000, or such other sum as may be found due on the accounts between them and the defendants, alleging that the plaintiffs had dealings with the defendants extending over a long period commencing in the year 1897. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 formed a joint family and had their business at Belgaum. All the defendants except defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 admitted the plaintiffs claim, but defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 contended that the plaintiffs' claim was out of time. It appears from the plaint that the date of the cause of action was first stated as follows:- 'On July 1, 1916, when the Receiver refused to pay off or in July 1917 when the defendants' shop was closed or in November 1916 i.e. at the end of the commercial year,' But apparently this was scored out and by an amendment the following was substituted for it 'from October 30, 1897, on respective dates on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Daji Khade Vs. Patlu Malu Sable
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom63; (1922)24BOMLR1157; 73Ind.Cas.862
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover possession of one Survey Number, which along with two other Survey Numbers was mortgaged in 1869 to the defendants' ancestor. In 1911 the present plaintiff as a purchaser of the equity of redemption sued to redeem the mortage of 1869. He mentioned only two Survey Numbers in that suit omitting the Survey Number now in suit. In that suit a compromise decree was passed as a result of which on payment of a Bum of Rs. 75, he was to recover possession of the two Survey Numbers mentioned in that suit. He recovered possession of these two lands after paying the amount.2. He has now filed the present suit on July 10, 1919, to recover possession of the remaining land alleging that the defendants were in wrongful possession of that Survey Number. Several issues were raised in the trial Court, but on the facts .as stated above the trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the land in suit had not been redeemed, and that th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vasudeo Ramchandra Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom105; (1922)24BOMLR1153; 71Ind.Cas.523
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present application are briefly these. Apparently in March last there was a proceeding before the Magistrate at Bhusaval against one Vana Khusal in respect of a charge under Section 401, Indian Penal Code. An application was made for bail on his behalf by the present petitioner as his pleader, but that application was refused on April 1, 1922. Then the statements of three witnesses were recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code on April 18, 1922, from which it appeared that on April 10 these witnesses had an interview with the present petitioner, and that the petitioner had instigated them to give false evidence.2. On April 15, another case against Vana Khusal in respect of a dacoity, which has been described to us as the Budhgaon dacoity case, was sent up to the Magistrate; and the case for the Grown is that it was in connection with this case of dacoity which was sent up to the Magistrate on April 15, that...
Tag this Judgment!Achut Sitaram Patwardhan and ors. Vs. Tarachand Chimniramshet Marwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom41; 72Ind.Cas.1003
1. This appeal is not resisited by the respondent. It appears that the power-of-attorney has been given by the guard an of the minor Achut Sitaram Patwardhan. The guardian resides at Nagar and there is no objection as to the validity of the power-of-attorney. Order III, Rule 2, Clause (a), as altered by the rule made by this Court, enables a person holding a general power-of-attorney from a party not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance is made, authorising him to appear and act on behalf of the party, to so appear and act. We think that the order made by the learned Judge rejecting the darkhast is wrong. We, therefore, set that aside and remit the darkhast for disposal according to law.2. We are informed by the Pleaders here that the parties have arrived at some compromise. That, however, is a matter which will be dealt with by the learned Judge below if it is put before him. He will have to consider the question whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlingappa Rudrappa Mukkannavar Vs. Dhondi Subrao Kutre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1304; 76Ind.Cas.145
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The property in suit originally belonged to one Subrao. He mortgaged it to one Balwantrao in January 1898. Subrao died in January 1899. In March 1899, his eldest son Appaya sold the equity of redemption in five out of six lands to Govind Ganesh, and Govind conveyed his interest to Hanmant on May 26, 1908. In July 1908, Hanmant sold his interest in these lands to the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In 1916, Appaya sold the equity of redemption to defendant No. 5 in the remaining land.2. The plaintiff, who is the younger brother of Appaya, filed the present suit in August 1918 for the redemption of the mortgage in favour of Balwant by Subrao, alleging that Appaya was a minor when he conveyed his interest in the lands to Govind in March 1899; that he himself attained majority within three years prior to the date of the suit, and that he was entitled to redeem. It appears that the mortgage in favour of Balwant was redeemed by the father of defendants Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Raoji Thakaram Patel Niharkar and ors. Vs. Hemraj Sadaram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom213; 75Ind.Cas.561
1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of certain Survey Numbers on the strength of a sale-deed passed in his favour by Laxman and his wife Jai who purported to act on behalf of Bhavdya, the minor son of Jai, by her first husband. It appears that the property originally belonged to Laxman but before his marriage with Jai he conveyed the property to the minor Bhavdya in 1905. After the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Bhavdya apparently mortgaged the property in suit to the defendants in 1916 and sold the same to them in 1918. Bhavdya's whereabouts at the date of the suit were not definitely known. The suit was filed on the 18th December 1919 and the question between the parties was really as to the merits of their respective titles.2. The Trial Court disallowed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was not proved.3. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and that Court directed further evidence to be taken on the...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyappa Fakirappa Vs. Tantappa BIn Kariyappa Kasawal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom40; 70Ind.Cas.832
1. In this case the appellant before the District Court of Dharwar died on the 12th December 1920. He was original defendant No. 4. An application was made on behalf of his minor son and hair by his cousin Gividappa on the 13th June 1921 to bring the minor heir on the record. That application would be in time according to the Limitation Act of 1908 as it stood prior to the amendment, as it was made in six months. That was, however, rejected because the period was reduced by the amending Act XXVI of 1920 to three months. Then he made an application on the 22nd July 1921 to set aside the abatement and to allow the minor son as represented by his cousin to continue the appeal. In support of that application he apparently relied upon Section 6 of the Limitation Act; but the learned Judge held the section to be inapplicable and accordingly rejected the application. The order, however, refusing to set-aside the abatement is appealable under Order XLIII, Clause (k).2. In the appeal before us ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »