Mumbai Court January 1946 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.
Badevva Immamsab Pinjar Vs. Hiriyenna Bhimappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom389; (1947)49BOMLR158
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. The applicant in. this ease is an agriculturist living in the Navalgund taluka of the Dharwar District where a Board has been established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. Under Section 17 of that Act he filed an application for adjustment of his debts. Among the three creditors mentioned by him in his petition was the present opponent who has not filed any appearance in this revision application. The present opponent was stated to be a creditor by reason of a sale-deed passed in his favour by the present petitioners for a sum of Rs. 800. The applicant claimed that this transaction although in the form of a sale-deed was really a mortgage. The Board held that the applicant was a debtor within the meaning of the Act and that the total amount of his debts did not exceed Us. 15,000. The preliminary issues which were required to be determined under Section 35 of the Act were decided in his favour. But in considering the real nature of this transaction un...
Daulatrao Malojirao Vs. Province of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom340; (1947)49BOMLR270
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. On March 17, 1944, judgment was delivered in this appeal by my brother Divatia and myself, by which we held, that as the plaintiff's claim is advanced and rests upon a saranjam tenure, Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876 is a bar to any relief being granted to the plaintiff against Government relating to the suit lands, in so far as they are classified to be granted or held as saranjam. At the same time, we pointed out, that the appeal raised a very important question so far as the general body of the saranjamdars is concerned and we intimated that Government might desire to have it judicially determined by making a reference under Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. Accordingly, before passing any order, we gave an opportunity for a reference to be made, and it is such reference which is now before this full bench. The facts sufficiently appear from the judgments delivered on March 17, 1944, and arising out of what was the...
Ujamshi Govindji Sanghadia Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Bom533; (1946)48BOMLR387
Sen J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on August 27, 1945, requiring the appellant to let, the second floor of his house at Vadvali Pole, Shahpur, Ward No. 1, Ahmedabad, to one Mr. B.S. Patel, District Inspector of Land Records, with effect from August 28, 1945. This order was made under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, read with Government Order H. D. (Political War) No. S. D. II/370 dated September 15, 1944. There was an earlier order made by the District Magistrate dated August 22, 1944, requiring the applicant to let the whole of the above-mentioned house to the said Mr. B. S. Patel. He protested against that order contending that he required the whole of his house for his family and his religious preceptor who also lived in the said premises. Thereupon the order complained against now was passed. It is the contention of the appellant that the order passed by the District Magistrate is ult...
Musa Hasafji Usman Bhamarda Vs. Keshavlal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom88; (1946)48BOMLR613
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This application in revision arises out of a suit on a mortgage filed by the five plaintiffs against seven defendants. The present applicant was original defendant No. 1 and he claimed that he was an agriculturist and was held to be such on August 31, 1944. Thereafter the amended Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act was applied to the Godhra Taluka on May 1, 1945, and thereupon the present applicant, defendant No. 1, prayed that the proceedings may be transferred to the Debt Adjustment Board. The learned Judge thought that as the applicant was the only agriculturist-defendant and as the Act did not provide for transfers in cases where only one of the defendants was an agriculturist, the suit could not be transferred to the Board. He therefore rejected the application for transfer, and against that order defendant No. 1 has come in revision.2. The amended Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act is different in terms from the old Section 37. Under ...
Kalookhan FazledIn Vs. Surji Vallabhdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom328; (1947)49BOMLR155
Rajadhayaksha, J.1. The suit out of which this civil revision application arises was filed by the plaintiff Nijamuddin as suit No. 123 of 1943. That suit was dismissed for default on June 13, 1944. Nijamuddin died on June 16, and on June 27 his nephews, the present applicants, filed an application, No. 69 of 1944, for restoring the suit to file. Evidence was taken during the hearing of that application and the application was fixed for final hearing on March 1, 1945. On that day the applicants remained absent, and the application was dismissed for default. Then on March 3, 1945, the applicants filed another application, No. 23 of 1945, for restoring the dismissed application to file. The learned trial Judge dismissed that application on April 7, 1945. Against that order an appeal was filed in the District Court and a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay against the order dismissing the application for restoring to file the application for restoring the suit dismissed for ...
The Superintendent of Stamps Vs. Ramkrishnalal Dahyabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom343; (1947)49BOMLR277
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The question which is referred to this full bench is whether all or any of the notes (there are five memoranda in all) are chargeable with duty under Article 43(a) of the first schedule to the Act or whether the said notes or any of them are exempt from stamp duty under Exemption (a) to Article 5 of the Indian Stamp Act.2. The matter originally came before this Court consisting of my learned brothers Divatia and Macklin and myself, and we adjourned the reference and sent it back, because we were not satisfied that the statements contained in the case were sufficient to enable us to determine the question referred to us, and we called for certain rules and regulations, if any, mentioned in each contract note with regard to the commodity mentioned therein. We directed that if there were no rules and regulations in respect of any commodity, then the necessary affidavit was to be filed to that ef...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›