Mumbai Court February 1939 Judgments
Dattatraya Vishnu Dabholkar Vs. Sadashiv Shivram Nisal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR882
Broomfield, J.1. These are two appeals by the defendants against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar with appellate powers in a suit relating to a share in the villages of Akolner and Khedle Parmanand in the Ahmednagar District. The facts are briefly these. Vishnu Moreshwar Dabholkar and his brother Janardhan, who were the owners of a two annas share in the village of Akolner and a six annas share in the village of Khedle Parmanand, mortgaged their share along with other property; to Sadashiv Shivram, who is respondent No. 1 in these appeals. This mortgage was in January, 1915. In 1920, a suit was brought on the mortgage against the two mortgagors and their sons, among whom was Dattatraya Vishnu Dabholkar, who is respondent No. 2 in appeal No. 293 and the appellant in appeal No. 187. A decree was passed by consent in 1921 for an amount of Rs. 32,000 and odd. Eventually the mortgaged property was put to sale and purchased by Sadashiv. The latter made applications...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Jadhavji Joshi Vs. the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom431; (1939)41BOMLR911
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a petition filed by the applicant under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act for an order requiring the respondent, the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay, who is a person holding a public office within the meaning of that section, to forbear from doing certain specific acts mentioned in the petition in connection with the Municipal elections held in Bombay on February 7 last. The city of Bombay is now divided into nineteen wards for the purposes of elections, and the applicant is enrolled as a voter in ward No. 6 (Bhuleshwar and Market) in the Municipal electoral roll for the city of Bombay. His name appears under serial number 7895 in the ward roll of that ward. The applicant's case is that the ward lists for the nineteen wards upon which the electoral roll was founded on or about December 20, 1938, are not, to use the words of the petition, 'prepared strictly in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the said Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Dyamangonda Patil Vs. Puttabai Gurunathgonda K. Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR947
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to allow the applicant to give substituted security for the cash payment, which he was required to make in relation to an appeal to the Privy Council. The application raises a point of practice, which has led to a difference of opinion between this High Court and other High Courts.2. Under Order XLV, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, an applicant desiring to appeal to the Privy Council is required, within ninety days or such further period, not exceeding sixty days, as the Court may upon cause shown allow, from the date of the decree complained of, or within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate, whichever is the later date, to furnish security in cash or in Government Securities. The decree in the present case was passed on January 19, 1938, and the certificate was issued on December 14, 1938. Therefore, it seems to me clear that under Order XLV, Rule 7, no extension of time could be given beyond six weeks from December 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Motilal Marwadi Vs. Mahadu Narayan Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom388; (1939)41BOMLR823
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by an agriculturist for an account of a mortgage of June 30, 1924, under Section 15D, Clause (1), of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879. The plaintiff had mortgaged his land to the defendant's father for Rs. 1,225. The trial Court held that the consideration of the mortgage was Rs. 177-13-0, and after taking an account it declared that on the date of the suit Rs. 177-13-0 were due as principal and Rs. 162-0-9 as interest. In appeal the learned District Judge varied the decree and held that Rs. 315-2-3 were due as principal and Rs. 290-7-6 as interest.2. The defendant has preferred this appeal, and it is contended on, his behalf that the lower Courts were not right in going into the question of the consideration of the mortgage deed in suit when the plaintiff' had merely asked for an account under Section 15-D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. It is urged on his behalf that accounts should be opened between the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general in Council Vs. Chotalal Shivdas and Another.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR411(Bom)
This is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Dhulia. The controversy is in regard to the prerogative claimed by the Crown, first in regard to the priority for recovery of Income-tax due from an assessee, and secondly, in regard to the procedure for enforcing that priority. The material facts are these : For the year 1933-34 there was default committed by the assessee, who is now respondent No. 2, in making payment of the income-tax in that year. The first respondent was an unsecured creditor of the assessee, and he obtained a decree in 1932 against the latter in execution of which he obtained attachment of assessees property which was liquidated and the proceeds brought into Court. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer, who had already taken steps under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) by forwarding a certificate under his signature to the Collector, specifying the amount of arrears due from the assessee, to enable the Collector to recover the same as ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Sheshadri Pandharpurkar Vs. Shantabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom374; (1939)41BOMLR818
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit on a foreign judgment. The defendant's father Shankar Komti mortgaged his house within the jurisdiction of the Osmanabad Court to the plaintiffs, and after his death, his daughter, the defendant, inherited his property as his sole heir. The plaintiffs filed a suit against her in the Osmanabad Court (Nizam's State) to recover Rs. 1,300 due under the mortgage deed by the sale of the mortgaged property and the balance out of the assets of the deceased mortgagor in the hands of the defendant. The defendant was then a minor and was living with her husband in the Sholapur District. Her husband was appointed her guardian ad litem, and notices were served both on the minor defendant and on her husband. The defendant's husband, however, did not appear to defend the suit, and the Osmanabad Court appointed its Nazir as the; defendant's guardian ad litem. The Nazir put in a written statement denying the mortgage, and after recording the statement...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Damodar Raichurkar Vs. Gangadhar Kashinath Sakhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom445; (1939)41BOMLR931
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur. The plaintiffs are suing to enforce a mortgage passed on September 10, 1924, by the adoptive mother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 contends that the mortgage is not for legal necessity and therefore is not binding upon his interest in the mortgaged property. The learned Judge held that in respect of Rs. 3,200, out of the total sum of Rs. 4,000 advanced, the mortgage was for necessity, but he held that the remaining Rs. 800 was not for necessity, and he passed an order on defendant No. 1 to pay out of the mortgaged property the sum of Rs. 6,400 which was based on the view that the total principal sum secured was Rs. 3,200.2. On the facts, I think, there is no reason for challenging the learned Judge's finding. Rs. 3,000 was required by the adoptive mother of defendant No. 1 to pay off subsisting mortgages on the property, and the learned Judge held that a further Rs. 20...
Tag this Judgment!Damji Hirji Vs. Mahomedalli Essabhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom461; (1939)41BOMLR959
Kania, J.1. Plaintiff, who as an endorsee of eight hundis drawn by the defendants on different parties is their holder, has filed this suit to recover the amount of the hundis from the defendants. In the written statement several defences were suggested. At the hearing Mr. Mistree for the defendants has given up all except that of jurisdiction.2. In para. 5 of the plaint it is alleged that the hundis were passed in, Bombay, the moneys due thereunder are payable in Bombay, and the whole cause of action has arisen in Bombay. No leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been obtained from the Court.3. The facts, admitted by the parties and proved, show that the defendants own ginning factories and presses at different places in the Bombay Presidency. None of them is in Bombay itself. The defendants have rented a room at Nagdevi Street in Bombay in the name of the firm. When the partners of the defendant firm come to Bombay they stay in that room off and on. For the purpose of carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Gangubai Pandurang Dombe Vs. Pagubai Narayan Kore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom403; (1939)41BOMLR815
Lokur, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises are undisputed. The property in dispute belonged to one Narayan Dada Kore who died about the year 1920 or 1921, leaving behind him two sons Tatya and Malkarjun, and his widow Pagubai, the step-mother of Tatya, and Malkarjun. He had left some debts, to satisfy which Tatya and Malkarjun mortgaged the property in suit to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,800 on June 1, 1922 (exhibit 84). Thereafter their step-mother Pagubai filed a suit for maintenance on April 11, 1923, in which the plaintiff also was impleaded as defendant No. 3. She claimed that her maintenance should be a charge on the property in suit. She asked for permission to file the suit in forma pauperis. The permission was granted on January 26, 1924, and the suit was duly registered. Thereafter Tatya having died, Malkarjun sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 on June 10, 1924 (exhibit 85). That consideration was made up of Rs. 1,800 due under the mortgage deed of...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Mahadev Bankar Vs. Maruti Rambhau Nikam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom389; (1939)41BOMLR800
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Assistant Judge of Poona directing an amendment of the decree passed by his predecessor in Appeal No. 23 of 1930, in such a way as to make the decretal amount a charge on the property in suit.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The property in suit belongs to opponents Nos. 2 to 8, Pardeshis of Pimpri. They mortgaged it to the petitioner Laxman Mahadev Bankar and had subsequently entered into a contract with opponent No. 1 to sell the said property and had received some advance as earnest money. Subsequently opponent No. 1 filed a suit to specifically enforce the agreement or, in the alternative, to recover the amounts advanced from time to time together with interest thereon as a charge on the property agreed to be sold. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of opponent No. 1 for Rs. 1,322-7-0 including past interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum and future interest at six per cent, per ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »