Mumbai Court May 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.
In Re: Fardunji Dadabhai Daruvala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom512; 83Ind.Cas.782
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The insolvent was adjudicated on his own petition on January 2'A, 1923. As he declared no assets, his petition was dealt with according to the summary procedure prescribed by the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. The insolvent has now applied for his discharge, but a creditor makes an application for his public examination. No sufficient reason is given why the application was not made before, and it is necessary to point out that it is too late to apply for the examination of an insolvent when the petition is on the board for final hearing, except in very special circumstances. The result would ordinarily be, that, if the examination were ordered, the insolvent's discharge would be postponed until the examination was concluded, although on the merits the insolvent might be entitled to his discharge immediately. The Official Assignee has reported to me that this indirect method of obtaining the postponement of an insolvent's discharge is being frequently used, a...
Vatsavaya Venkata Subhadrayamma Vs. Poosapati Venkatapati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR786
Atkinson, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam on April 4, 1913, by the plaintiff--the present appellant--the widow of the Rajah of Tuni deceased, who died in the year 1911, against the six respondents named to recover the sum of Rs. 1,68,629 and to obtain a declaration that this sum was well charged upon a certain sum of money received by the respondents, under a certain decree dated March 12, 1913, styled a compromise decree, made in a suit, No. 18 of 1903. and also for payment of three thirty-seconds of what remained of the sum received under such compromise after payment of the sum of Rs. 1,68,629. The Subordinate Judge, on December 6, 1915, made a decree in favour of the appellant, the plaintiff in the suit, for the sum of Rs. 1,91,058, and also made the declaration asked for to the effect that this sum was well charged on the sum paid to the respondents in pursuance of the compromise decree. The lear...
Emperor Vs. Annaji Venkatesh Mujumdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom445; (1924)26BOMLR614
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The four accused were charged before the Sessions Judge of Belgaum, first of all, with having conspired together and forged a document purporting to he a will passed by one Sanganbasaveshwar Swami of Chikodi in favour of accused No. 3 on December 15, 1919; secondly, accused No. 3 with having fraudulently and dishonestly used the said will as genuine by producing it in support of his claim in the Chikodi Magistrate's Court on December 23, 1921, knowing then or having reason to believe it to be a forged document; and thirdly, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 with having instigated and abetted accused No. 3 to so use it, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sub-section 467, 471 and 109, Indian Penal Code. The Judge convicted all the accused. Agreeing with all four assessors he found accused No. 3 guilty of forgery of the will Exhibit 13, and of using it as genuine. Agreeing with all four assessors he found accused No. 4 guilty of forgery of the will and agreeing...
Veerappa Chetty Vs. Arunachellam Chetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR661
Blanesurgh, J.1. This is a suit to enforce by an order for sale a mortgage of certain property in Upper Burma, made by the respondent in favour of the assignor of the original plaintiff.2. The case comes before their Lordships on an appeal from an order of the Chief Court of Lower Burma dismissing the suit, and discharging a decree for sale of the mortgaged property--which had been made by the trial Judge in the District Court of Myauugmya. The question is whether there was adduced by the plaintiff at the trial evidence sufficient to justify an order for sale of the mortgaged property.3. Such suits as the present are governed by Sections 83-90 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In effect these sections, now embodied in Order XXXIV of the Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, protect a defendant mortgagor against a decree for sale, unless the amount due upon his mortgage, if not admitted, has either at the hearing been proved by the plaintiff or has been ascertained after the hea...
Anaji Venkatesh Mujumdar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.593
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The four accused were charged before the Sessions Judge of Belguam, first of all, with having conspired together and forged a document purporting to be a Will passed by one Sanganbasaveshwar. Swami of Chikodi, in favour of accused No. 3 on December 15, 1919; secondly, accused No. 3 with having fraudulently and dishonestly used the said Will as genuine by producing it in support of his claim in the Chikodi Magistrate's Court on December 23, 1921, knowing then or having reason to believe it to be a forged document; and thirdly, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 with having instigated and abetted accused No. 3 to so use it, and, thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 467, 471 and 109, Indian Penal Code. The Judge convicted all the accused. Agreeing with all four assessors he found accused No. 3 guilty of forgery of the Will Ex.13 and of using it as genuine. Agreeing with all four assessors he founded No. 4 guilty of forgery of the Will and agreeing with three ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›