Mumbai Court February 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.
Hiralal Mohanlal Mutha Vs. Ramchandra Kundanmal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom375; (1930)32BOMLR619
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Court of Ahmednagar reversing the order of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Shevgaon. The main ground in support of the application for revision is that the District Court in maintaining an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in it by law.2. The facts found by the District Judge are set out in his judgment as follows :The appellant decree-holder purchased the house of the respondent No. 2 judgment-debtor at a Court auction for the amount of the decree. The sale certificate was issued to the appellant in due course. When, however, he sought to take possession of the house he found it locked and hence came to the Court to have the look removed, A notice was issued for this purpose to the judgment-debtor who appeared in the Court and put forward the plea that he had arrived at a compromise with the appellant whereunder the appellant was to receive Rs. 1,0...
Keshav Mahadev Sonalkar Vs. Lakshman Narayan Phadnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom378; (1930)32BOMLR614
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent, Mr. Phadnis, was elected a member of the Municipality of Jalgaon on February 12, 1925, for a period of three years commencing from April 1, 1925 ; and on May 9, 1925, the Municipality elected him to be a member of the School Board. On August 26, 1925, on a petition to the District; Judge, it was held that he was disqualified under Section 15(f) of the District Municipal Act for election on the Municipality by reason of his interest in a printing contract which the Municipality had entered with his father with whom he was joint. From September 23, 1925, the defendant No. 1, appellant Mr. Sonalkar, Chairman of the School Board Jalgaon, refused to send him notices of the meetings of the School Board or to allow him to serve thereon, notwithstanding a subsequent resolution of the Municipality in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly in 1926 the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 brought a suit against the Chairman Mr. Sonalkar, as defendant No. 1...
Havu Ravlu Padti Vs. Ganapati Venkatraman Shenvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom329; (1930)32BOMLR679
Madgavkar, J.1. Defendant No. 2 owned the land in suit and granted a mulgeni lease of it in 1915 to defendant No. 1 appellant and subsequently passed a usufructuary mortgage of the land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant asked the respondent to allow him to surrender the lease. The respondent refused. The appellant then purported to surrender the lease to defendant No. 2 who accepted the surrender. The respondent sues the owner defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 appellant for rent for the period subsequent to the surrender by the appellant to defendant No. 2. The trial Court held the surrender valid and dismissed the suit. In appeal the District Judge held that the surrender was not competent and decreed the claim. Defendant No. 1 appeals.2. The question in this appeal, therefore, is, whether, by virtue of Section 111, Clause (e), of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease could be determined by a surrender by a mulgeni tenant to the owner, the original lessor, witho...
Madanlal Lachmandas Vs. Kedarnath Shersinghdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom364; (1930)32BOMLR660
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we have before us two appeals from the learned Chamber Judge. Appeal No. 53 of 1929 is from an order of September 2, 1929, giving conditional leave to the minor defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to defend the suit on depositing Rs. 30,000 in Court on or before September 16,1929. The other appeal, viz., No. 57 of 1929, is from an order of September 24, 1929, against these minor defendants for the amount of the decree claim, in default of security not having been furnished. The latter decree was passed ex parte.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents that no appeal lies from the first order imposing the condition in question : that that being so, the second order was rightly passed ex parte, and that no appeal lies from that also and we were referred to certain authorities of the Calcutta High Court and this Court as to the meaning to be given to the word ' judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. Taking Appeal No. 57 first, that is f...
Grimault and Co. Vs. Premji Gopalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom336; (1930)32BOMLR414
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The appellants appeal from an order of the Chamber Judge refusing their application to be added as parties to this creditors' administration suit. They allege that the plaintiff, who has obtained leave under Order I, Rule 8, to sue on behalf of himself and all other creditors of the deceased, is really in collusion with the first defendant widow and others, and that the interim consent order appointing one Chunilal Dayabhai to be receiver without security and without remuneration but with power to carry on the business was wrong, and also that the Court should not have directed an allowance of Rs. 100 per month to be paid in favour of the widow and her two minor children inasmuch as it appears from the plaint itself that the deceased was alleged to have left large debts and that it is at least doubtful whether the estate is solvent.2. The learned Judge discharged the summons, and we have not the benefit of his reasons. But we are informed by counsel that af...
Shridhar Krishnabhatta and Venkatram Krishnabhatta Vs. Madappa Ganap H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR698
Patkar, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for a declaration that the final decree obtained by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in suit No. 85 of 1915 was invalid and inoperative against the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining them from executing it against him.2. The first point raised in the lower Court was whether such a suit would lie, simply on the ground that the notices were not properly served on the defendants. The lower Court, relying on the decision in the case of Ibrahim v. Juauf (1919) 22 Bom. L.R. 798, held that a party, against whom a decree was passed ex parte, could seek to set it aside by an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, or could appeal from the decree, but it was not competent to him to start a fresh proceeding to set aside the decree. This point is not raised before us in appeal.3. There were two other grounds on which the decree sought to be executed was impugned by the plaintiff in the lower Court, first, on the ground that as...
In Re: Garbad Yadav Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1496
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application in revision by the petitioner, Garbad Yadav Vani, accused No. 1 in the case, against the order passed by the District Magistrate, East Khandesh, on May 17, 1930, under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reinstating the complainant in possession.2. The original complaint was against eleven accused including accused No. 2, Kushaba, the brother of the present petitioner, accused No. 1., Garbad. The case of the complainant was that, notwithstanding certain sale deeds between him and accused No. 1, he had continued in possession of certain lands and sown the crops, but had been forcibly dispossessed by the eleven accused. The trial Court held the complaint true as against all the accused except accused Nos. 1 and 11 whose presence was not proved and therefore it acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 11 and convicted the other accused under Sections 147 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeals of accused Nos. 2 to 10 were dismissed by the District ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›