Mumbai Court August 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.
Thakorebai Shrinivas Khemraj Vs. the Central Bank of India, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom35; (1943)45BOMLR976
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Blagden on a motion, which asks in substance that the applicant may be at liberty to exercise the privilege conferred by Order XXXIV, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, enabling a defendent in a mortgage suit by paying into Court all amounts due from him under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, that is the mortgage money, to redeem the property, and that privilege can be exercised at any time before the confirmation of a sale made in pursuance of a final decree. Various questions are discussed in the judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden, but in this Court the only point which has been argued, and the only point with which we need deal, is whether the applicant can exercise the right conferred upon a defendant under Order XXXIV, Rule 5.2. The facts giving rise to the application are these. The mortgage, which is in question, was made on May 24, 1928. It was a mortgage of the Lucknow Flour Mills made by two gentlemen named Shr...
Rango Ramchanda Kulkarni Vs. Narayan Rayaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom243(2); (1944)46BOMLR437
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar refusing to transfer the opponent's darkhast against the petitioner to the Board at Navalgund under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1939. One of the grounds for rejecting the petitioner's application for such transfer is that the amount of his debts exceeded Rs. 15,000 on, January 1, 1939, when the Act came into force. It is now urged that the date, on which his debt should be less than Rs. 15,000 should be taken as the date of the order and not the date on which the Act came into force. Section 37 provides that all pending suits in which the question involved is the recovery of any debt from a person who is a debtor under the Act, if the total amount of the debts due from such debtor is not more than Rs. 15,000 should be transferred to the Board to which an application for adjustment of debts of such person under Section 17 lies. The date on w...
Krishna Mhatarba Temkar Vs. Baban Rambhau Temkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR634
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain properties on the ground that he was adopted as a son by one Manjulabai to her deceased husband to whom the properties belonged. The plaintiff's case in substance is that one Rambhau died in 1918 leaving two widows Deubai and Manjulabai. Deubai died in 1932 leaving a daughter Thakubai who was the original defendant No. 1 but died pending the suit. The other widow Manjulabai who is alive adopted the plaintiff on February 23, 1937. She had a daughter at that time named Dagadubai who was defendant No. 1A but who, after Thakubai's death, became defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's natural father Gangaram and defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are descendants of Rambhau's two brothers and are thus his agnates. Before the plaintiff's adoption in 1937, Manjulabai had, on June 8, 1927, sold nearly half of the property, which she got from her husband, to defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Rs. 2...
Krishna Mhatarba Temkar and anr. Vs. Baban Rambhau Temkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom24
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 in a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain properties on the ground that he was adopted as a son by one Manjulabai to her deceased husband to whom the properties belonged. The plaintiff's case in substance is that one Rambhau died in 1918 leaving two widows Deubai and Manjulabai. Deubai died in 1932 leaving a daughter Thakubai who was the original defendant 1 but died pending the suit. The other widow Manjulabai who is alive adopted the plaintiff on 23rd February 1937. She had a daughter at that time named Dagadubai who was defendant 1A but who, after Thakubai's death, became defendant 1. The plaintiff's natural father Gangaram and defendants 2 to 6 are descendants of Bambhati's two brothers and are thus his agnates. Before the plaintiff's adoption in 1937, Manjulabai had, on 8th June 1927, sold nearly half of the property, which she got from her husband, to defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Rs. 2500. Dagadubai and Thaku...
Amritlal Narsilal Shah Vs. Sadashiv Anna Malekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom233(2); (1944)46BOMLR432
Lokur, J.1. In execution of a money decree obtained by opponent No. 2 against opponent No. 1 the latter's lands were attached and sold by auction to the petitioner for Rs. 450 on December 11, 1941. It was stated in the proclamation of sale that the amount payable to the decree-holder was Rs. 450-8-0 together with interest at six per cent, per annum on Rs. 439-4-0 from. January 29, 1937, to December 11, 1941. On January 9, 1941, that is to say within thirty days after the auction sale, the judgment-debtor deposited in Court Rs. 595 and made an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to have the sale set aside. He stated in the application that the amount to be deposited would be Rs. 22-8-0 representing five per cent, of the auction price of Rs. 450, Rs. 450-8-0 the principal due to the decree holder and Rs. 118-8-0 interest on Rs. 439-4-0 as stated in the sale-proclamation. Thus the total amount payable to the auction-purchaser was Rs. 22-8-0 and that pa...
P.D. Shamdasani Vs. the Central Bank of India Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom197; (1944)46BOMLR335
Coyajee, J.1. This summons is taken out by the defendant bank for striking out and expunging a certain portion of paragraph 21 of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 16, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The words complained of are :Inter alia of exposing the malpractices, window-dressings, illegalities, etc. in the management and accounts of the defendant bank so as to enable the members of the defendant bank to assert their rights in the matter.2. The summons is supported on the ground that the statement referred to is, first of all, scandalous, and, secondly, irrelevant to the issues that must arise on the pleadings in the case.3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the return of certain five shares of the bank standing in the name of the plaintiff alleged to be illegally sold by the defendant bank in February, 1937, and for Rs. 50,000 as damages. This is contained in prayer (a) of the plaint. Prayer (b) of the plaint, in the alternative, asks for Rs. two lacs as damages. The relief...
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Narhar Abhyankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR962
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a revision application against an order made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Poona, The question, which arises, is one which has led to some difference of opinion amongst the High Courts in India.2. The facts are that the accused has been charged with criminal misappropriation, and the case was inquired into by a Magistrate, who heard one witness, an accountant, who gave evidence at considerable length. Then the case was transferred to another Magistrate who continued the inquiry. The accused desires the accountant witness to be recalled, and his evidence taken de novo before the new Magistrate, The learned Magistrate has refused his application, and the refusal was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.3. The question turns entirely on the construction of Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the question being when, in a warrant case, a trial commences. Does it commence when the Magistrate starts the inquiry, or does it only comm...
Pandappa Mahalingappa Vs. Shivalingappa Murteppa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR962
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of two-thirds of five patilki watan lands of Devapur which were held by one Mahalingappa Gadigeppa Naik till his death and after him by his widow Gaurawa and her adopted son Basappa. Mahalingappa died about the year 1903 and the lands were entered in the revenue records in the name of his widow Gaurawa. Her adopted son Basappa died unmarried in 1919. Gaurawa, whose name had already been entered in the Record of Rights in 1904, continued to be in possession of the watan lands and in February 1921 she leased them cut to Hanmant Venkatesh and Hanmant Balkrishna for a period of twenty years. On June 24, 1921, she executed a deed of adoption in favour of defendant No. 1 Pandappa, purporting to have taken him in adoption on April 9, 1921. In 1922 one Bhagawa filed a suit against Gaurawa, through her next friend, claiming possession of the lands in suit on the ground that she was the widow of Basappa. The dispute was referred to arbi...
Umiashankar Naranji Pandia Vs. Shivshankar Prabhashankar Bhatt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom239(2); (1944)46BOMLR424
Sen, J.1. The appellants were the defendants in a suit in which the plaintiff, the owner of a house, claimed certain rights of easement over the adjoining property of the defendants and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in the enjoyment of those rights. Defendant No. 1 is the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, defendant No. 3 being a minor whose guardian ad litem was defendant No. 1.2. The case was first decided ex parte after which it was restored to the file and set down for hearing in July, 1940. On July 30, 1940, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 arrived at an agreement, exhibit 128, and the parties in a joint application stated that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the house of the defendants and that the suit was to be settled on a registered document being passed. Time being asked for, the Court adjourned the case from time to time. The agreement stated that the suit was adjusted by the parties having agreed that the house was to be sold ...
Emperor Vs. the Provident Investment Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR965
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the petitioner's conviction under Section 471 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, for failure to comply with a requisition made under Section 308(2) by the Municipal Commissioner for the removal of an encroachment, and the short question which arises for decision is whether the passage alleged to have been encroached upon by the construction of a compound wall by the petitioner is a 'street' within the meaning of the Act. The question, though simple, is of considerable importance to the civic administration. The petitioner purchased three residential buildings and some open plots in the year 1939. To the west of those buildings there are two buildings of different owners separated from the petitioner's buildings by a passage thirty feet in width. It is this passage which is said to have been encroached upon by the petitioner. The Municipal Commissioner gave him a notice to remove the encroachment and, on his failure to do so...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »