Mumbai Court February 1924 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shivlingappa Mallappa Sadalgi Vs. Shidmallappa Nurandappa Kapali and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.752
1. These are execution proceedings in a decree passed on December 13, 1906. We are now in 1924. It might be suggested that the law of procedure was at fault and has been the cause of delay. But that is not the fact. The relevant provisions of the Code are quite adequate but they have not been complied with, as they have not been understood by the Judges in the Courts below. The decree was originally passed by the Chikodi Court, and was transferred for execution to the Gokak Court on January 11, 1907. The Gokak Court would continue to have jurisdiction to execute the decree until it certified to the Chikodi Court that the decree had been execute, or where it failed to execute the same, the circumstances attending such failure. There is no evidence whatever in this case that the Gokak Court certified as required by law either the execution of the decree or the failure to execute it, to the Chikodi Court, and once that fact has been realised, it will be seen how the lower Courts have fall...
Malhar Narayan Prabhu Vs. Vishnu Sonu Ganada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.754
1. The facts in this second appeal are as follows. The second defendant obtained a decree in the Kudal Court in Sawantwadi against five persons, the plaintiff, his two brothers Gopal and Govind, and his two sisters-in-law Ramabai and Baibai. It would appear from the Roznama in that suit that the plaintiff was not served with the summons. Gopal and Govind alone defended the suit, in which a decree was passed awarding a certain sum of money against the five defendants. The appeal against that decision was unsuccessful. Thereafter the decree was transferred to the Malvan Court in British territory for execution. The decree was sent to the Collector, who attached the properties in suit and put them up for sale. The first defendant purchased the property at the auction. The sale was confirmed and possession was given on December 20, 1916.2. The plaintiff filed this suit in 1918 for a declaration that the decree was void and unenforceable against him and that, therefore, the sale of his inte...
Jehrabi Sadullakhan Mokasi Vs. Bismillabi SadruddIn Kaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom420; (1924)26BOMLR375
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to obtain their shares in the suit property. There is no dispute with regard to the shares of the parties The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that properties 32, 36 and 39 to 42 did not belong to Mahomedkhan. There can be no doubt that this decision was right. These properties were sold in execution of the decree against Talumiya so far back as 1873, and they were purchased by one Balkrishna Sapre. He got symbolical possession in 1877. He filed Suit No. 143 of 1899 against Mahmadkhan for actual possession. The suit was dismissed in the lower Court, and before the appeal which was filed was decided Mahmadkhan died leaving a widow Sahebbi who was put on the record as his legal representative. The appeal was successful. Possession was decreed in 1902 while the second appeal filed by defendant No. 2 was dismissed. Sapre's widow sold this property to the seventh defendant...
Nilkanth Balvant Natu Vs. Shri Vidyashankar Bharati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom387; (1924)26BOMLR455
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover by sale or foreclosure Rs. 5,00,001 and interest charged upon certain immoveable properties in Belgaum, Kolhapur, Sawantwadi, Kurundwad and Satara. The suit was filed in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Satara against the mortgagors or their representatives to enforce the alleged rights of the mortgagee. Certain issues were taken up at the trial as preliminary issues, and from the decision of the Subordinate Judge on those issues an appeal was filed to the High Court (being F.A. No. 39 of 1913, the suit being No. 604 of 1910 of the Satara Court). On appeal the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit continued in the Subordinate Judge's Court.2. It was contended by the defendants that the mortgaged property was Devasthan and Saranjam, and not liable to be mortgaged. The Judge decided this issue in plaintiffs' favour and the decision on the fourth issue would necessarily follow a...
Sahu Ram Kumar Vs. Muhammad Yaqub
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR631
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated March 4, 1919. This decree reversed that of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Moradabad dated September 30, 1916, decreeing the plaintiff's claim.2. A building contract by way of offer and acceptance had been concluded between the plaintiff, appellant, who was the owner of certain land, and the respondent, a builder apparently in a humble way of business, who was a contractor. Certain subsidiary matters of accounting were referred to in the minute argument delivered before the Board. Even if that argument had been in all points sound, it would have resulted in a relatively trivial readjustment of the figure of the alleged balance. Their Lordships content themselves with observing that the appeal is decided upon a consideration of the only ground which appears in the reasons of the appellant. It is not legitimate to raise at this Board other and subsidiary points which were apparently neither...
Vithal Laxmannaik Malgavkar Vs. Mahadev Raghunath Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom426; 80Ind.Cas.249
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. One Lingo got a decree in Regular Suit No. 183 of 1916, whereby it was ordered that the first defendant and the plaintiff should take possession of various properties from the other defendants. After the decree had been passed Lingo sold his interest in some of the properties of which possession was directed to be given to him to the present appellants, Lingo thereafter made an application for execution of his decree. His purchasers were not parties to that application. An order appears to have been made in execution under Order XXI, Rule 35(1), but the Subordinate Judge held that action ought to have been taken under Order XXI, Rule 36, which he directed should be done, and that the possession given under Order XXI, Rule 35(1) should be set aside.2. The appellants sought to appeal from that order to the First Class Subordinate Judge, with appellate powers, and an issue was raised whether the appellants had any locas siandi to appeal. The learned Judge held that ...
Kaikhushru Nusserwanji Chandabhoy Vs. Tata Industrial Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom339; (1924)26BOMLR237
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. These are two appeals from the orders passed by Kemp J. on two petitions under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913. The first petition was filed by the appellants, the second by the respondents in the circumstances mentioned by the learned Judge at pp. 336 to 340 of the Paper Book. There being no dispute as to the facts there is no necessity for me to set them out again in this judgment. The learned Judge on the second petition ordered that Messrs. Chandabhoy and Guzdar should be removed from their office as liquidators in the voluntary winding up of the Tata Industrial Bank. As a consequence of that order the first petition was dismissed with costs, the Judge remarking that in the circumstances of the case he thought the presentation of that petition was improper.2. Under Section 207, Clause (ix), of the Indian Companies Act the Court has power in the voluntary winding up of a company on cause shown to remove a liquidator. What should be the measure of 'due cau...
Krishnaji Sonji Gawade Vs. Sadanand Mahadev Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom417; (1924)26BOMLR341
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an account of the amount due under the mortgage referred to in the plaint to the mortgagees under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The property was originally held in equal shares, one of which belonged to Ram Naroji and the other to two brothers, Jivaji and Kusaji, Jivaji being the elder brother of the joint family consisting of two brothers. Ram Naroji and Jivaji together mortgaged both shares to one Anant Laxman on March 17, 1868. Ram Naroji's share in the equity of redemption was sold subsequently at a Court sale and purchased by one Joshi who conveyed the same to the grand-father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by Exhibit 58 in 1872. Jivaji within two or three months of the mortgage sold his share in the equity of redemption to the mortgagee Anant. Anant's son by Exhibit 55 in 1873 sold Jivaji's and Kusaji's share in the equity of redemption to the grand-father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had o...
Krishnaji Sonji Gawade Vs. Sadanand Mahadev Thakur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.763
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an account of the amount due under the mortgage referred to in the plaint to the mortgagees under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act. The property was originally held in equal shares, one of which belonged to Bam Naroji and the other to two brothers, Jivaji and Kusaji, Jivaji being the elder brother of the joint family consisting of two brothers. Bam Naroji and Jivaji together mortgaged both shares to one Anant Laxman on March 17, 1868. Ram Naroji's share in the equity of redemption was sold subsequently at a Court sale and purchased by one Joshi who conveyed the same to the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by Exhibit 58 in 1872. Jivaji within two or three months of the mortgage sold his share in the equity of redemption to the mortgagee Anant. Anant's son by Exhibit 55 in 1873 sold Jivaji's and Kusaji's share in the equity of redemption to the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had obt...
Emperor Vs. SaifIn Rasul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR267
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged with two offences, one under Section 42 of the Prisons Act IX of 1894, read with Article 485 of the Bombay Jail Manual, 1911, the other under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. There can be no doubt on the facts found by the Magistrate that the accused had taken a bundle of newspapers from one of the prisoners on a request that he should deliver the newspapers outside the jail premises. That would be an offence under Section 42 of the Prisons Act, taken in conjunction with Article 485 of the Bombay Jail Manual, 1911, and there can be no doubt that the conviction under that charge was correct. Although that was not accepted when the rule was applied for, it is now conceded.2. Then the accused was charged with having accepted a rupee for taking the newspapers outside the jail premises which, according to a chit found in his possession, the prisoner had given to him in order to guess change. Even if that story was true, it would be an offence ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »