Mumbai Court April 1944 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.
Himatmal Devchand Vs. Abdul Hakke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom76; (1944)46BOMLR757
Kania, J.1. This is a notice for rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. The plaintiff filed his suit in the Vadgaon Court and in due course obtained a decree for Rs. 2,084-10-0. The defendant is a railway servant and as such a public officer to whom the provisions of Section 60, Clause (i), of the Civil Procedure Code, apply. Other decrees were also obtained by other creditors in suits filed against the defendant. One such suit was filed by creditor No. 8 in 1934, another by creditor No. 3 in 1935. The other creditors appearing on this notice filed their suits in 1940-41. In execution of the decree obtained by the. plaintiff money is recovered from time to time from the railway company. Disputes have arisen between the parties because of the amendment of Section 60, Clause (i), in 1937 by Act IX of 1937. Before that amendment, under that claflse, the salary of a public servant, when not more than Rs. 40 a month, was wholly exempted from attachment. ...
Haveliram Shetty Vs. Maharaja of Morvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom88; (1944)46BOMLR877
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. The facts pertinent to this appeal lie within a comparatively narrow compass. The respondent is the landlord, and the appellant the tenant of certain premises whereon he conducts the business of a boarding and lodging hotel. The lease of the premises having expired on March 1, 1943, the appellant sought to hold over, but the respondent brought this action for possession. To that claim the appellant set up the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, which Order, as it then stood, only protected premises let for the purposes of residence. The action originally came before Mr. Justice Blagden on June 29, 1943, when he made an order for possession, on the ground that the premises were not let for the purposes of residence. Against that order the present appellant appealed, and that appeal came before the Chief Justice, Sir John Beaumont, and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha, on August 19, 1943. They reversed the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below, holding that...
Waman Mahadev Gadgil Vs. Pandu Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1944
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR257
Sen, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land and, in the alternative, for possession, damages and mesne profits if the said defendants were found to be in possession. Their case was that the land in suit, viz. fifteen gunthas out of survey No. 23, falni No. 3, of village Kondhe, District Ratnagiri, was dhara land of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 and 5, that this land was partly in the vahivat of the plaintiffs and partly in that of their tenants and that defendants Nos. 1 to 3, about August 17, 1938, obstructed them in their enjoyment of the said land and erected bandhs thereon. The defence of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was that the suit land, which stood in the plaintiff's khata, was a dhara holding of which they were permanent tenants since times immemorial, that they had been paying a fixed rent therefor and were in actual enjoyment thereof, that they made the ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›