Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR316
Russell, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta in its civil appellate jurisdiction (dated February 28, 1941), which reversed a decree of the Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction (dated August 8, 1939) pronounced in an action in which the plaintiff (now the appellant) sued the four respondent coal companies to recover brokerage. The trial Judge(Lort Williams J.) gave the plaintiff the relief which he sought, but on appeal the Chief Justice and McNair J. dismissed the action.2. The case is one of difficulty in that the rights of the parties depend upon happenings which took place many years ago, viz. at the end of the year 1919 and early in the year 1920, while the action was tried in the year 1939, and the truth has to be ascertained from the documents and the recollections of three witnesses, viz. the plaintiff, whose evidence was given in the witness-box before the trial Judge, and two witnesses for the defence whose evidence was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR503
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated May 12, 1938, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra dated September 12, 1936.2. The appeal arises out of an execution application made by the appellant's father, Hemraj, since deceased, for the execution of a money decree which he had obtained against one Danpal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, afterwards confirmed on appeal against the present respondents, the sons of Danpal, by the attachment and sale of the ancestral property in their hands.3. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara law. The question for determination is whether the respondents can lawfully object to the execution of the decree on. the ground that having regard to the nature of the judgment debt, the rule of the pious obligation of a son under the Hindu, law to pay his father's debt does not apply to this case; or, in other words, is the debt in respect of which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR525
Viscount Simon L.C., J.1. This appeal is brought, by leave of the Madras High Court, from an order of that Court dated November 5, 1937, dismissing the appellants' application that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Board of Revenue at Madras to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order made by the Collective Board, on October 9, 1936, under Section 172 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.2. The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should 'be certified' of the proceedings to be investigated and the object is to secure, by the exercise of the authority of a superior Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. This writ does not ...
Tag this Judgment!