Mumbai Court January 1931 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.
Gangadhar Martand Joshi Vs. Sir Jagmohandas Varjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR781
Madgavkar, J.1. The three numbers belonging to the appellant judgment-debtor including a house were attached in execution by the decree-holder respondent, and notice of the attachment on the appellant was returned on July 24, 1925. The appellant objected that the decree was declaratory and the attachment improper. These points were decided against him, and the property was ordered to be sold through the Collector. After the sale he applied that the property was not liable to sale under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pending disposal of that objection the appellant was not dispossessed. The trial Court dismissed the application as being unduly delayed. The judgment-debtor appeals.2. It is argued for the appellant that the trial Court appears to have had Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, in its mind, whereas the appellant being the judgment-debtor and not a third party the application is governed by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. It is contended for the respondent ...
Govind Gangadhar Dongarkar Vs. Narayan Damodar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR844
Patkar, J. 1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage dated August 1, 1879, in respect of the lands in suit in favour of Gangadhar Bhivrao, father of defendant No. 1, by Mahadeo Lakshman, predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiff.2. On August 31, 1885, a decree was passed in suit No. 821 of 1883 brought by the original mortgagor for redemption. On July 8, 1914, the plaintiff purchased one half of the property from the daughter-in-law of the mortgagor, and brought the present suit on April 27,1926. The defendant contended that the original mortgage is merged in the decree in suit No. 821 of 1883, and, therefore, the present suit is barred by Sections 11 and 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the Courts held that the present suit for redemption was maintainable.3. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit is brought on the decree in suit No. 821 of 1883 and not for the redemption of the original mortgage dated August 1, 1879. It is further urged t...
In Re: Malabar Forests and Rubber Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom334; (1932)34BOMLR617
Mirza, J.1. This is a proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 50(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which the applicant is seeking to enforce an order, made by this Court under the Indian Companies Act against the firm of Cooper Daveand Co. who are respondents and contributory No. 74 herein, against one Burjorji Sorabji Cooper on the ground that ha is a partner in the firm of Cooper Daveand Co. The amount which has become payable under the order of this Court is inrespect of call moneys due on certain shares which were allotted to the firm of Cooper Daveand Co. The company has gone into liquidation and the official liquidator is the applicant. It is common ground that none of the notices under the Indian Companies Act resulting in the order which is now sought to be executed against Burjorji Sorabji Cooper was served upon him. The present summons is taken out under Order XXI, Rule 50(2), of the Civil Procedure Code, and calls upon Burjorji Sorabji Cooper to show cause why the Judge's orde...
Gordhandas Baldeodas Vs. Bhulabhai Ranchhoddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom316; (1932)34BOMLR623
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are shroffs and merchants, claim from the defendants a sum of Rs. 3,274-7-3 with interest on Rs 3,128-5-3 at six per cent, from August 10,1930, till judgment. The claim is made in respect of an account which subsisted between the two firms. BhulabhaiChhotalal, who was a partner in the defendant firm, has appeared on behalf of the firm and raised certain defences to the suit. The other partner Maneklal has not appeared and has evinced no interest in these proceedings.2. Exhibit A shows that the account which subsisted between the two firms was in the nature of a mutual, open and current account, That account is for the Samvat year 1982. According to the evidence of Gordhandas Baldeodas, Maneklal made up the accounts of his firm with him and executed a writing Exhibit B, whereby he acknowledged the indebtedness of the defendant firm on an adjustment of account up to date in a sum of Rs. 3,096-4-6 and agreed on behalf of the defendant firm that the amount s...
Emperor Vs. Bechar Shiva
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR338
John Beaumont, C.J.1. In this ease four accused were charged with committing an offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were each sentenced to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment, and accused No. 2, who was a member of a criminal tribe, was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment by reason of the provisions of Section 23 of the Criminal Tribes Act, 1924. It appeared that accused No. 2 had a previous conviction against him under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code passed in the year 1914, The learned Sessions Judge said that having regard to the length of time which had expired since the previous conviction he considered that he would be justified in passing a lesser sentence on accused No. 2 than the seven years provided for under Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Tribes Act. We sent for the record and proceedings and directed notice to be issued to the Government Pleader because it seemed to us that there was something illogi...
Bechar Shiva Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.478
Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case four accused were charged with committing an offence under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were each sentenced to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment, and accused No. 2, who was member of a criminal tribe, was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, by reason of the provisions of Section 23, Criminal Tribes Act of 1924. It appeared that accused No. 2 had a previous conviction against him under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, passed in the year 1914. The learned Sessions Judge said that having regard to the length of time which had expired since the previous con-viction he considered that he would be justi-fied in passing a lesser sentence on accused No. 2 than the seven years provided for under Section 23 (1) (a), Criminal Tribes Act. We sent for the record and proceedings and directed notice to be issued to the Government Pleader because it seemed to us that there was something illogical in the learned Judge's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›