Mumbai Court December 1930 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.
Prafulia Ranjan Das Vs. the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR409
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from so much of an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna as refused to allow the appellant as advocate to appear in the Courts of the province of Bihar and Orissa. The appellant in 1904 was called to the English bar by the Hon. Society of the Middle Temple. In 1906 he was admitted as an advocate of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal. On the establishment of the High Court at Patna he caused his name to be removed from the roll of advocates of the High Court in Calcutta and was enrolled as an advocate of the High Court at Patna. He practised as an advocate, and in February 1919 was appointed a Judge of that High Court. His name remained on the roll of advocates. In February, 1930, he retired from his office as Judge on medical grounds, on a pension. Meantime, in 1926, had been passed the Indian Bar Councils Act, which provides that the High Court shall prepare and maintain a roll of advocates of the High Court and that no person shall be enti...
Shidlingava Sadeppa Pelarad Vs. Rajava Tanesaheb Jayalgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR603
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to accounts under Section 15(b) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act from defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, appellants.2. The land in suit belonged to one Bhagojappa. In 1882 he mortgaged it with possession to Santangava father of Renava, Exhibit 101. In 1893 the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to Lalsaheb, Exhibit 99. In 1902 Lalsaheb died leaving a brother Davalsaheb. Defendant No, 4, Yamanava, claims to be Lalsaheb's widow and is the mother of Rajava and Balesaheb, the plaintiffs. In 1905 defendant No. 4, Yamanava, purporting to act as the guardian of plaintiff No. 2, and Lalsaheb's brother Davalsaheb sold the equity of redemption to one Shivabaaappa the predecessor-intitle of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, appellants, and on October 10, 1907, Shivabasappa redeemed the mortgage from the heirs of the original mortgagee Santangava. Plaintiff No. 2 was born on September 9, 1902. On Decemb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›