Mumbai Court November 1943 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.
Laxmichand Tuljaram Shedji Vs. the Pioneer Urban Co-operative Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom265; (1944)46BOMLR522
Divatia, J.1. This appeal was remanded to the trial Court for a finding on the issue as to whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the attachment at the date of the mortgage to him. The plaintiff had got a mortgage in his favour of two survey numbers from one Vasudev on June 26, 1933. Before that date, however, the defendant, which is a Co-operative Bank, had filed a suit against Vasudev and had, in execution of the decree obtained against him, attached the two survey numbers on December 9, 1932. Thereafter the plaintiff got them sold in execution of a decree obtained by him against Vasudev to enforce his mortgage and himself purchased one of the lands. The sale took place on December 22, 1936. When the plaintiff tried to recover possession of the survey number, he was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the property had been validly attached by him even before the plaintiff's mortgage and that the plaintiff was bound by the attachment. The plaintiff then filed the present suit...
Virchand Kapurchand Vs. Marualappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR666
Sen, J.1. The appellant is a decree-holder who is seeking to execute a decree obtained by him on July 19, 1921, in Suit No. 236 of 1921 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Bijapur, against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It was a decree for money and was passed in terms of an award. It made the decretal amount payable by instalments and directed that in default of payment of two instalments the whole amount should become recoverable at once. Two defaults in the payment of instalments were committed so that the whole amount became payable on May 1, 1923. Thereafter five darkhasts have been filed, the present one being the fifth, darkhast No. 333 of 1939 filed on May 29, 1939. The previous darkhasts were as under ;Darkhast No. 106 of 1924 filed on March 10, 1924, and disposed of on June 26, 1928;Darkhast No. 375 of i929 filed on August 7, 1929, and disposed of on June 26, 1931;Darkhast No. 753 of 1931 filed on November 26, 1931, and disposed of on April 10, 1934; andDarkhast No. ...
Sohrabji Dhunjibhoy Medora Vs. the Oriental Government Security Life A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom166; (1944)46BOMLR279
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chagla dated April 14, 1943. The action concerns the nature and terms of an agreement which in its original form was entered into in 1892. Variations subsequently took place, the most important of which were in the years 1899 and 1917. The original agreement and the variations were effected by correspondence ; and, as appears from the plaint and the written statement, the parties have treated the original agreement as constituting an agency, and that is the relationship which, it is common ground, both in the Court below and in this Court, is the aspect of the matter on which both parties rely. What is in dispute is whether the agency is, as the Advocate General submitted, of a permanent character, or to put it in other way, whether the authority of the appellants' agency is irrevocable. But if it is revocable, then it is contended on behalf of the appellants that it is only terminable on the reasonable notic...
ismail Dada Bhamani Vs. Bai Zuleikhabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom181; (1944)46BOMLR244
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden dated August 11, 1943.2. The appellant is the tenant of certain property at the Victoria Road, Byculla, being certain plots of land in the Mustafa Timber Market. The premises are comprised in two leases executed by the former owner and by the Central Bank who were the mortgagees. Both leases are dated October 11, 1933, and, except for the description of the plots, are in identical terms. In each case the term of the lease commenced on September 1, 1932, and ended on August 3.1, 1935, after which date the appellant held over. By Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a monthly tenancy is thereby constituted.3. It appears that the appellant was a tenant of all the plots subject to the two leases prior to September 1,1932, by some former tenancy, and in the case of the plots subject to one of the leases the appellant's sub-tenants were already in possession, and that in the case of the plots ...
Kisandas Bankatlal Vs. Ragho Ram Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom316; (1944)46BOMLR663
Sen, J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought by the opponents in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Jalgaon against the petitioner for setting aside five award decrees obtained by the latter in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Pimpalgasn and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the said decrees. The plaintiffs at first framed the suit somewhat differently; instead of seeking to set aside the five decrees they sought a declaration that they had been fraudulently obtained and were hence not binding on them, as well as an injunction against the defendant, and they applied to the Court to be allowed to amend the plaint as above. As' originally framed, the claim in the suit was valued thus : for declaration in the case of each decree Rs. 200 and for injunction in each case Rs. 5. The total valuation thus being Rs. 1,025, it was a suit falling within the description of Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, i.e....
Abraham Ezra Issac Mansoor Vs. Abdul Latif Usman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom156; (1944)46BOMLR159
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. By reason of the transactions mentioned by Mr. Justice Chagla in his judgment dated July 15, 1943, the defendant, who is the appellant in this Court, is the mortgagee of certain property of the plaintiff for securing a principal sum of Rs. 35,000. His power of sale having arisen, the appellant purported to exercise it by entering into a contract for sale of the property to one Abdul Mahomed Allibhoy. In the Court below it was assumed that the power of sale was rightly exercised, and that the only issue to be dealt with-and which we have to deal with in this Court-is whether after the appellant as mortgagee had exercised his power of sale, by entering into a contract : the mortgagor still has a right to redeem. If he has such a right to redeem before the conveyance is executed ; then the respondent has exercised it : since pursuant to the order of Mr. Justice Blagden made on May 25, 1943, he brought into Court a sum of Rs. 47,500, which was the term imposed by...
State of Gondal Vs. Govindram Seksaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR822
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against the judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden dated January 15, 1943, whereby it was ordered that defendant No. 1 should pay to the plaintiffs upwards of Rs. 77,000. There is also a cross-appeal by the plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who are trustees and against whom the learned Judge dismissed the action.2. An objection as to the jurisdiction of this High Court to try this action was taken in the Court below, and has been raised by Sir Jamshedji Kanga in this Court also. It arises in this way. Defendant No. 1 is His Highness the Maharaja of Gondal, and under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it is not competent to sue the Ruling Chief of an Indian State in this Court, unless the consent of the Crown Representative has been first obtained. Sub-section (1) of Section 86 is as follows :-Any such Prince or Chief, and any ambassador or envoy of a foreign State, may, in the case of the Ruling Chief of an I...
Emperor Vs. Jayantilal Jagjivan Muljl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR196
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the three accused under Rule 120(A) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, by the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. The facts leading to the prosecution of the accused are contained in the statement of Police Inspector Kilbourne of Gamdevi Police Station. On March 1, 1943, a printed handbill (exhibit a) was brought to his notice, purporting to have emanated from the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and announcing that public prayers would be held on the Chaupati sands at 7 p.m. on March 2, 1943, which was the last day of Mr. Gandhi's fast. It requested men, women and children to attend that meeting in thousands. No permission of the Commissioner of Police had been taken for holding such a meeting as required by a notification issued by Government under Rule 56(1) of the Defence of India Rules. That sub-rule empowers the Central Government or the Provincial Government for the purpose of securing...
Sarala Sundari Dassya Vs. Dinabandhu Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR571
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal which reversed the judgment of the District Judge at Pabna on an application by the respondents for the revocation of the probate of a will of an alleged testator Haralal Saha, which had been obtained by his widow, who is the appellant, in the year 1933.2. The circumstances were that Haralal Saha was a man of some age and had been very successful in his business, which was principally that of a moneylender. He owned immovable property in several districts in Bengal and in one district outside. He died in 1927 and, upon his death, there can be no doubt, that his three sons who survived him took possession of the properties. In some instances they had joined in a suit with their mother and were substituted for their father in a partition suit. They got a certificate of succession to enable them to sue on certain debts which were due, no doubt, on the moneylending business. They collected the rents o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›