Mumbai Court February 1925 Judgments
Vishvanath Bhiva Raul Vs. Tukaram Vithu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom417; (1925)27BOMLR661
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to redeem and recover possession of the plaint land from the defendant. The plaintiff claimed through one Chimabai, who mortgaged the suit property to one Ganu for Rs. 75 on June 2, 1896, with possession. On May 5, 1902, Gaim assigned his mortgage rights to one Yamunabai kom Laxman for Rs. 125, Yamunabai sold the property on July 7, 1906, to one Shankar Laxmau for Rs. 300, The document purported to be a sale deed, but contained this clause: 'I have given in your custody for keeping them with you the documents that I have regarding the said house ' Those documents included the assignment of the mortgage rights given by Ganu to Yamunabai Shankar, therefore) knew that the owner was only a mortgagee. On September 21, 1907, Shankar sold the plaint property to the present defendant for Rs. 400. That document contained the following clause: 'The said property was in the vahivat of Yamunabai by right of the assignment deed of May fi, 1902. She sol...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Rajindra NaraIn Singh Vs. Sunder Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR849
Shaw, J.1. The Board is of opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court by their judgment of May 2, 1921, was correct. It is to be regretted that the High Court did not itself, in the exercise of its powers, appoint a receiver of this property which the judgment-creditor seeks to attach and bring to sale.2. Their lordships do not agree with the High Court on the subject of the actual legal position of the right of maintenance conferred upon the judgment-debtor. That right of maintenance arose under a compromise which was made between the judgment-debtor and his brother. The compromise agreement is not produced, but its terms are said by the parties to be recorded in a decree pronounced by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur on May 20, 1915. The substance of this agreement is that the judgment-debtor, one of the two brothers parties to the compromise, was declared to have a right of maintenance in certain villages enumerated, the right being conferred expressly 'without power of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Viramgam Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. the Indust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom442; (1925)27BOMLR655
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that this appeal is not competent as the order was made by District Judge, not in the winding-up of the company, but on the application of the company itself. There are two classes of orders which can be made under Section 158 of the Indian Companies Act, the first, while the company is in existence, which can be made on an application either by the company or by a creditor or by a member of the company, the second after a winding up order has been made, which can be made on an application by the liquidator. It is only if the order is made in the course of the liquidation by the Court that aa appeal lies under Section 202 of the Act. As this order was made on an application by the company, which is not in the course of being wound up, there is no provision in the Act which provides for such an order being appealable. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs in favour of respondent No. 1....
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Dhondihaj Gayadhani Vs. Pandharinath Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR997; 97Ind.Cas.688
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit relates to a property, which originally belonged to one Vasantpuri, and was sold by auction in Darkhast No. 535 of 1908 of the Nasik Court. Defendant No. 1 was the certified purchaser. The plaintiff now claims to be the owner of half, saying that defendant No. 1 purchased it at the auction for plaintiff and defendant No. 1, on plaintiff's supplying half the amount needed for the purchase and further expenses. The Judge said:-I believe that the plaintiff actually paid the amounts which he says he paid for the purchase and possession of the house. I believe Exhibits 43 and 44 when they gay that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had agreed to purchase the house jointly in their presence. I would have anawered the second issue, whether the plaintiff proved that he owned half share in the house, in the affirmative had I held this suit tenable,2. But the Judge was of opinion that the suit was not tenable on account of the provisions of Section 63 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Dhondiraj Gayadhani Vs. Pandharinath Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom525
Macleod, C.J.1. This suit relates to a property, which originally belonged to one Vasantpuri, and was sold by auction in Darkhast No. 565 of 1908 of the Nasik Court. Defendant No. 1 was the certified purchaser. The plaintiff now claims to be the owner of half, saying that Defendant No. 1 purchased it at the auction for plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, on plaintiff's supplying half the amount needed for the purchase and further expenses. The Judge said:I believe that the plaintiff actually paid the amounts which he says he paid for the purchase and possession of the house. I believe Exhibits 43 and 44 when they say that the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 had agreed to purchase the house jointly in their presence. I would have answered the second issue whether the plaintiff proved that he owned half share in the house, in the affirmative had I held this suit tenable.2. But the Judge was of opinion that the suit was not tenable on account of the provisions of Section 66 of the Civil Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Meghji Vs. Cawasji Framji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR568
Taraporewala, J.1. In this matter the petitioner prays that the appointment of Vithaldas Damodar Govindji as sole arbitrator under Section 9 (6) of the Indian Arbitration Act made by the respondents may be set aside and that it may be declared that the power of appointing arbitrators under the partnership agreement having once been exercised by both the partners has been exhausted and that reference to Vithaldas Damodarj Govindji be revoked. In the alternative the petitioner asks that a tit and proper person nominated by the petitioner may be appointed as an arbitrator on petitioner's behalf to act along with the said Vithaldas Damodar Govindji.2. The whole argument as to the revocation of the appointment of Vithaldas Damodar Govindji is based on Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It has been argued that that section applies only where one of the arbitrators dies or becomes incapable or refuses to act, but that where both the arbitrators refuse to act, the arbitration comes to an...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Nathu Vs. Ichharam Naroba Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR649
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A consent decree was passed in this case on March 18, 1912, by the First Class Subordinate Court at Dhulia against two defendants separately, each being made liable for Rs. 6,600 payable by annual instalments of Rs. 6,500 each together with interest due commencing from November 1, 1912 The decree charged the properties of the two defendants separately. The decree against the first defendant is being executed in Dhulia, as his property is in that Court's jurisdiction, The property of the second defendant at the time of the decree was passed was also within the jurisdiction of the Dhulia Court. On June 9, 1920, the Jalgaon Court was made a First Class Court, and as the second defendant's property was within the jurisdiction of that Court, a question arose with regard to the further execution of the decree against him. The darkhast of 1921 was filed against both the defendants in the Dhulia Court. On February 22, 1922, the Dhulia Court held that as far as the s...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Shekh Vs. Chandu Sonu Khodke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom418; (1925)27BOMLR652
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In Rajmal Girdharmal v. Maruti Shivram I.L.R(1920) . 45 Bom. 329 22 Bom. L.R. 1371 it was held that when a party to an award sought to file it in Court under paragraph 20 of the second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code, and the Court refused to file it, such refusal would not operate as a bar of -res judicata if the party filed a regular suit thereafter to enforce the award. In this case the applicant sought to file an award passed in his favour dated September 17, 1918. The application was registered as a suit. But thereafter the defendant died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period. An order for abatement was then passed, The applicant then brought a suit in the First Class Subordinate Judge Court to recover the money under the award, but the plaint was returned by the Joint Subordinate Judge as being beyond his jurisdiction and was presented to the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff, however, thought he ...
Tag this Judgment!Deekappa Malappa Hubli Vs. Chanbasappa Rachappa Neeli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom420; (1925)27BOMLR917
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this case obtained a decree on January 23, 1923, in Suit No. 201 of 1921 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar against one Chanbasappa Rachappa, respondent No. 1. He had obtained an attachment before judgment on certain properties of the respondent on July 12,1922. This attachment was confirmed by the decree. Other creditors of the respondent had obtained decrees against him in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Hubli. The present opponent No. 2 obtained a decree in the Hubli Court on June 23, 1922, and attached certain of the respondents' property on June 29, 1922. That property was sold in execution by the Hubli Court on March 16, 1923. Opponent No. 3 obtained a decree in the Hubli Court on July 9, 1922, and in execution of that decree certain other property of the respondent was sold on July 14,1923. All the properties sold in execution of these two decrees had been already attached before judgment i...
Tag this Judgment!Hardayal Shivlal Vs. Haji Adam Goolmahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom344; (1925)27BOMLR545; 87Ind.Cas.1011
Taraporewala, J.1. The point for decision in this matter is whether moneys in the hands of the Official Assignee, which are payable to the judgment-debtors as creditors of the insolvent by way of dividend declared by the Official Assignee, are attachable under Order XXI, Rule 52, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. I have been told that there have been judgments of single Judges of this Court disallowing such attachment, following the English cases on the point There is no judgment of a Judge of this Court with reasons given for the decision on the point which might be of some assistance to me in deciding this question The judgments of single Judges, however, are not binding on me.3. Now there is no doubt that in England it has been held that the moneys in the hands of the Official Receiver payable by way of dividend to the judgment-debtor as creditor of the insolvent are not a debt liable to be attached within the meaning of Order XLV, Rule 1, of the Supreme Court Rules. The point was deci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »