Mumbai Court July 1934 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.
Khandesh Laksmi Vilas Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Graduate Coal Concern
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom75; (1934)36BOMLR1217
Macklin, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon amending a decree in such a way as to bring the name of the applicant upon the decree as judgment-debtor. The applicant is a company known as the Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Mills Company. They were sued by a concern known as the Graduate Coal Concern on a mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on the mortgage, and the plaintiffs at a later stage applied, under exhibit 56, to have the j decree made final. The decree was made final under exhibit 86. Then the Graduate Coal Concern applied in execution proceedings to have the property brought to sale. Notice of the execution proceedings was sent to the Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Company; but they put in an application alleging that the final decree was not binding upon them inasmuch as they had not been a party to that decree. This application was heard, and it was decided that the final decree was not binding upon the Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Compan...
Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Graduate Coal Concern
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.329
1. This is an application to revise an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon amending a decree in such a way as to bring the name of the applicant upon the decree as judgment-debtor. The applicant is a Company known as the Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Mills Company. They were sued by a concern known as the Graduate Coal Concern on a mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on the mortgage, and the plaintiffs at a later stage applied, under Ex. 56, to have the decree made final. The decree was made final under Ex. 86. Then the Graduate Coal Concern applied in execution proceedings to have the property brought to sale. Notice of the execution proceedings was sent to the Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Company; but they put in an application alleging that the final decree was not binding upon them inasmuch as they had not been a party to that decree. This application was heard, and it was decided that the final decree was not binding upon the Khandesh Laxmi Vilas Company because it could no...
Chimanlal Ganpatram Ghanchi Vs. Natvarlal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom131; (1935)37BOMLR62; 155Ind.Cas.7
Macklin, J.1. In the action which has given rise to this appeal the plaintiff sued for a declaration that a deed of mortgage executed in 1921 by a widow Bai Muli in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding upon him as reversioner, and for possession of the suit property after the eviction of the person who is in possession of the property as tenant of the mortgagee of 1921. The property in suit is a shop. This property and several others belonged to one Balgovind, who died many years ago leaving a widow Kashi, and three sons, Chimanlal, Himatlal, and Maganlal. After a suit for partition between the sons in the year 1894 certain of the properties were divided but certain other properties (including the suit property) were left undivided. The eldest son Chimanlal died two years later (in 1896) and left no heirs. The second son Himatlal died in 1905 leaving a widow Muli and a daughter Shivlakshmi. The third Maganlal died in 1917 leaving a widow Divali. A month after Maganlal's death Kashi...
ismail Abdul Latif Vs. Haji Ibrahim Haji Jan Mahomed Karachivala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom178; (1935)37BOMLR57; 157Ind.Cas.1067
Tyabji, J.1. This is a very unfortunate suit. The testator died leaving an estate which he considered worth Rs. 7,000 or Rs. 8,000. Probate to his will was obtained. Afterwards two of his nephews, the plaintiffs in this suit, addressed the executors charging them with neglect of their duties as executors. Lengthy correspondence ensued, In the end this suit was brought for the general administration of the estate by the Court. Not only the executors, but the widow and the Advocate General, as representing the charity, are made parties. The Advocate General is made a party because the will leaves one-third of the estate to charity.2. My substantive order is very simple. The report is confirmed, and the exceptions are dismissed with the costs of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant No. 3 will hand over to the executors the property found by the Commissioner to be in her possession.3. The real questions I have to decide refer to the costs of the suit. The costs of the parties exceed the whole...
Babu Alias Vrajlal Ratansey Vs. Alibhai Dawoodbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1201
Rangnekar, J.1. In this case after I delivered my judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit the learned Counsel on behalf of the defendants asked that the next friend should be ordered to pay the costs of the suit and stated that that was the ordinary rule. Mr. Desai on the other hand contended that the suit being for the benefit of the minor and there being nothing to show that it was unnecessary or improper, there was no reason to make the next friend liable for the costs of the suit. He further said that as he had no notice of this application he was not prepared to argue the point fully. As it seemed to me that the question involved was of considerable importance and as counsel stated there was no direct decision bearing on the point, I allowed the case to stand over to the following Friday so that I should have the benefit of a fuller argument on the question. Accordingly, the question has been argued fully and a number of decisions, mainly of the English Courts, have been cited at...
Babu Vs. Alibhai Dawoodbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom112; 156Ind.Cas.304
Rangnekar, J.1. In this cage after I delivered my judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit the learned Counsel on behalf of the defendants asked that the next friend should be ordered to pay the costs of the suit and stated that that was the ordinary rule. Mr. Desai, on the other hand, contended that the suit being for the benefit of the minor and there being nothing to show that it was unnecessary or improper, there was no reason to make the next friend liable for the costs of the suit. He further said that as he had no notice of this application he was not prepared to argue the point fully. As it seemed tome that the question involved was of considerable importance and as Counsel stated there was no direct decision bearing on the point, I allowed the case to stand over to the following Friday so that I should have the benefit of a fuller argument on the question. Accordingly, the question has been argued fully and a number of decisions, mainly of the English Courts, have been cited a...
P.K.P.S. Pichhappa Chettiar Vs. Chokalingam Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1934
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR976
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated September 9, 1929, reversing the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad, at Madura, dated January 18, 1927.2. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the respondents and/or their deceased uncle Virappa Pillai were partners of the appellants in the business of money-lenders and bankers carried on at Colombo under the style of P. K. P. S., and if Virappa Pillai was a partner, whether his partnership was on his own account or as managing member of the Hindu joint family to which he and the respondents belonged.3. The suit was brought on April 8, 1924, by P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar against (1) K.V.R. Virappa Pillai, (2) Chokalingam Pillai, (3) Shanmukhan Pillai (a minor by his guardian ad litem the second defendant), (4) P.K.P.S. Palaniyappa Chettiar, (5) P.K.P.S. Raman Chettiar, and (6) P.K.P.S. Chidambaram Chettiar.4. Defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›