Mumbai Court June 1929 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.
Ardeshir Nusserwanji Dossabhoy Vs. Usman Gani Memon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1101; 122Ind.Cas.847
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether Order XXI, Rule 57, Civil Procedure Code, applies to property attached before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court held that it did; the lower appellate Court, that it did not. The purchaser from the original judgment-debtors appeals.2. The property in suit consists of a house at Panchgani, which was attached before judgment by the plaintiff in suit No. 343 of 1916 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Poona. The suit was decreed on March 6, 1917. On October 31, 1918, an application was made by the decree-holder to the decreeing Court for transfer of the decree to the Court of Wai, in the Satara District, for execution, and was granted. On October 3, 1922, the decree-holder filed a darkhaet in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Wai for sale of the attached property. All the decree-holders were minors, and the Court of Wai ordered the darkhastdar guardian to give security. He failed to ...
Murlidhar Laxman Vs. Shivram Sadashiv Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR963; 121Ind.Cas.446
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the present darkhast is barred by limitation'. The trial Court held that it was barred. The lower appellate Court took the view that in law it was not barred but by an error which is not easily explicable, dismissed the appeal with costs. The decree-holder appeals.2. Laxman and Vithal were brothers constituting a joint Hindu family. On their death the family consisted of Laxman's minor sons Dattatraya and Murlidhar and Vithal's son Vaman a major and apparently the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two cousins. In suit No. 35 of 1911 an award decree was made allowing the plaintiff-respondent to redeem the land on making certain payments payable by instalments. The decree concluded as follows:-'The guardian of the minor defendants will not be allowed to receive the amount due under this decree unless he furnishes security for the same.' The last payment certified was in 1917. For the defendants-appellants a c...
Ratanlal Ghelabhai Vs. Amarsing Rupsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1042; 122Ind.Cas.54
Norman Kemp, Kt., A.C.J.1. The plaintiff-petitioner alleges that he and his predecessors-in-title were the owners of survey No. 102 in the village of Nandorda, West Khandesh District;, that he leased the property to defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 2 was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed by defendant No. 1 and that he only came to know of this on July 7, 1926. He then called upon defendant No. 2 to join him in filing a suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act but defendant No. 2 refused to join. The plaintiff thereupon filed suit No. 1609 of 1927 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Nandurbar under, s g of the Act and made defendants Nos. 1 and 2 defend- ants to that suit. The learned Subordinate Judge framed an issue in these terms:-'Is the plaintiff entitled to bring this suit?' He came to the conclusion that the question for determination was whether a landlord can sue for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act when, as ...
In Re: P.D. Shamdasani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR925
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a case filed by the petitioner under Article 282 of the Indian Companies Act against the auditors of the Central Bank from the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The application is based on two grounds, first, that the Third Presidency Magistrate is disqualified from trying the case under Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that he is a shareholder in the Central Bank of India, Limited, and, secondly, that on account of certain events that have happened, the applicant has reason to apprehend that he will not have a fair and impartial trial before the learned Magistrate.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the learned Magistrate is personally interested as he is a shareholder of the Central Bank. It appears that, the learned Magistrate holds two or two and a half shares in the said bank. The personal interest of the Magistrate alleged by the petitione...
Parashuram Dataram Shamdasani Vs. Hugh Golding Cocke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.61
Patkar, J.1. This is ran application for transfer of a case filed by the petitioner under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act against the auditors of the Central Bank from the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The application is based on two grounds, first that the Third Presidency Magistrate is disqualified from trying the case under Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that he is a share holder in the Central Bank of India Limited, and, secondly, that on account of certain events that have happened the applicant has reason to apprehend that he will not have a fair and impartial trial before the learned Magistrate.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the learned Magistrate is personally interested as he is a share holder of the Central Bank. It appears that the learned Magistrate holds two or two and a half shares in the said Bank. The personal interest of the Magistrate alleged by the petitioner...
Shib Chandra Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR6
Binod Mitter, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals against two decrees dated December 11, 1923, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, setting aside two decrees dated January 18, 1921, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge Moradabad.2. The two suits in which the decrees of the High Court were passed were brought by the plaintiffs-respondents separately against the appellants to redeem two items of properties covered by a mortgage dated March 23, 1905, namely, 13 Biswas of the village Sadat Bari and the whole village Rudain, respectively, and the question for determination now is whether the deposit made by the plaintiffs under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act on June 29, 1912, was sufficient.3. On March 23, 1905, the original mortgagors executed a mortgage deed in favour of the appellant Shib Chandra and another who, on the same day executed a lease in favour of the mortgagors in respect of the mortgaged premises and under that lease the mortgagors agreed to pay Rs....
In Re: Dodhu Kalu Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR922; 118Ind.Cas.693
Patkar, J.1. On November 5, 1928, there was a fight between the complainant and the accused in connection with the carcass of a cow. The complainant and the accused were all tried on a charge under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to varying fines. The complainant then filed the present complaint on November 27, 1928, charging the accused with rioting and hurt. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 on the ground that there was no proof of rioting, that the offence fell under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the present prosecution was barred under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 408 a person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under Section 285, Sub-section (1).2. The charges under as.. 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code could have been j...
Malkarjunappa Sidramappa Deshmukh Vs. Anandrao Annarao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR957
Madgavkar, J.1. The dispute between the parties relates to a strip of land, two acres and thirty-three gunthas, shown in the map Exhibit 66. Defendant No. 1-appellant was the owner of Survey No. 527, pot No. 3, and the plaintiff-respondent, the owner of Survey No. 527, pot No. 1. Both these pot numbers adjoin a public road. When the Government Surveyor witness Hari (Exhibit 69) thought that respondent No. 1 cut off the trees on this road, he commenced an inquiry and incidentally in the course of that inquiry he was of opinion that the boundary marks between the pot Nos. 1 and 3 have been wrongly placed during all these years and that it was actually an old water course in which case the strip now in dispute falling to the south of the water course would belong to the appellant and not, as it was so far thought, to respondent No. 1. In September 1921, the Deputy Collector held the respondent guilty of encroachment on the public road. In October 1921 the respondent asked for a review of ...
Ambashankar Uttamram Malji Vs. Heptulla Sarafalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom22; (1929)31BOMLR1221; 122Ind.Cas.855
Norman Kemp Ag, C.J.1. This is a revision application against the decree of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge, vested with Small Causes Court powers, of Broach. The circumstances giving rise to the suit were as follows:-2. The petitioner, who is a respectable and apparently well-known pleader of the Broach Court, entered into an agreement with the opponent as his client to conduct certain litigation contemplated by the latter for a fee of Rs. 125 which was fixed on the conventional 'ad valorem' scale on the amount of the suit. The petitioner read the papers in the case and came to the conclusion that further instructions were necessary and in order to properly draft the plaint instructed his client to get them. Thereafter, the petitioner saw nothing of his client for three months, when he was informed by him that the claim had been compromised. The client, the opponent in this application, filed a suit against the petitioner to recover the fee of Rs. 125. The learned Subordinat...
Kunwar Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan Vs. Muhammad Obaid Ullah Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1393
John Wallis, J.1. The parties to this suit are members of a Mahomedan family, and the plaintiffs sue to establish their rights as heirs of Abdul Shakur and Abdul Latif to certain properties in the villages of Chakathal and Kakathal, which are in possession of Obaid Ullah, defendant No. 1.2. The deceased Abdul Shakur was the youngest of four brothers, Abdul Latif was the son of the eldest brother and Obaid Ullah is the son of a younger brother. The second and third defendants are widows who have been made parties as being among heirs of Abdul Latif. The present appeal relates only to certain properties in the aforesaid villages, which were purchased at court auctions in execution of decrees by Mahmud Ali on April 20, 1885, and by Sirajul Haq on March 21, 1892. On July 7 and 8, 1900, Sirajul Haq and Mahmud Ali executed sale deeds of these properties in favour of Obaid Ullab, defendant No. 1.3. The plaintiff's case is that the purchases at the court auctions and the subsequent transfers w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »