Mumbai Court June 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.
Monohar Das Mahanta Moharaj Vs. Hazarimull Babu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1345
John Wallis, J.1. This case, which comes before this Board on appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Calcutta reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, raises the question whether the holder of a final decree for sale of mortgaged property is entitled to maintain a separate suit to enforce a further charge against such property for payments made to prevent a sale for arrears of revenue which fell due after the passing of the final decree and while execution proceedings were pending.2. In 1918 the then Mahant of the Asthal Math instituted a suit on a mortgage executed in his favour on January 39, 1905, against the mortgagors, the Tewari family, who are represented in the present suit by defendants Nos. 1 to 6, joining the present defendant No. 7, in whose favour they had executed subsequent mortgages, and also other members of his family, who were interested in an earlier usufructuary mortgage of some of the properties mortgaged to the Mahant. According to the fin...
Emperor Vs. Motilal Gangadhar Kabre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1178
Rangnekar, J.1. The accused were convicted by the District Magistrate of East Khandesh under Section. 188 of the Indian Penal Code for disobedience of an order duly promulgated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erandol, under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The only question raised on this petition is whether the order was a lawful order within the meaning of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Two points are taken by Mr. Gupte on behalf of the petitioners. The first is that the order does not state the material facts of the case as required by Sub section (1) of the section; and, secondly, the order is too wide and beyond the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 144 of the Code....2. Before a Magistrate can take action under this section he must be of the opinion that immediate prevention or speedy remedy is necessary, and when he has made up his mind that it is so, he must state the material facts in the order. It will be seen that no material facts are ...
V. Papiah Naidu Vs. Naganatha Sethupathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1351
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of the Resident in Mysore at Bangalore reversing a judgment of the District Judge of the Civil and Military Station of Bangalore, and decreeing the plaintiff's suit on a mortgage of immoveable properties in Bangalore effected by deposit of title deeds in Madras. The question is whether such a mortgage is valid. The Civil and Military Station is an area within the territory of the Mysore State, as to which plenary jurisdiction has been transferred by treaty to the British Government, and is governed by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council of June, 11, 1902, made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. Clause 4 empowers the Governor General of India in Council to make rules and orders for territories such as this:-(a) for determining the law and procedure to be observed, whether by applying with or without modifications all or any of the provisions of any enactment in force elsewhere, or otherwise. 2. A Noti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›