Mumbai Court February 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.
Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Jwaladutt Pilani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom135; (1946)48BOMLR727
Chagla, J.1. This is a suit filed by a constituent against Ms broker. The plaintiff claims in the suit accounts for two vaidas, December 1938 and January 1989. His grievance is that although called upon from time to time to render the accounts, the defendant, his agent, has failed to render those accounts. The substantial defence on this plea is that the accounts with regard to the December 1938 and January 1939 vaidas were settled between the parties and the plaintiff is not entitled to the accounts. The facts which are really not in dispute are as follows.2. The defendant submitted the ankda for the December 1938 settlement to the plaintiff on December 8, 1938. This ankda showed that a sum of Rs. J,204-1-0 was due by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff did not pay the full amount but paid a sum of Rs. 839-1-0 in respect of this vaida, and the defendant accepted this amount in full and final settlement of what was due by the plaintiff for the December vaida. It is necessary ...
Digambar Narayan Modak Vs. Malegaon Co-operative Credit Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR746
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The Malegaon Co-operative Credit Society went into liquidation and its liquidator filed a suit on its behalf against the appellant and others to recover possession of certain property. The suit was decided in its favour and the appellant who was defendant No. 4 was ordered to deliver possession of the property to the society. The appellant appealed against the decree and the appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the society's suit with costs throughout. The decree of the first appellate Court was confirmed in second appeal by this Court and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Thus the appellant became entitled to recover Rs. 226-9-10 for his costs in the three Courts, and he presented this darkhast to recover that amount by attachment and sale of the moveable properties of the society found in its office. The executing Court called upon the appellant to show how the darkhast was maintain...
Parvatibai Utamlal Vani Vs. Rupa Keshav Tamboli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR658
Sen, J.1. The following question has been referred to this bench:-Whether an order made by the Collector under Section 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939), is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court?2. Weston J., who has referred this question, has expressed the following opinions. (1) The Mamlatdar and Collector, when administering the Act, are Courts within the definition of the Indian Evidence Act, and the Mamlatdar when acting' under Section 12 of the Bombay Tenancy Act for the determination of the reasonable rent is a revenue Court within the definition of Section 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) There seems to be some distinction as regards the appellate authority between Section 12 of the Act, under which appeals lie to a Civil Judge, on the one hand and on the other hand Sections 13, 19 and 24, under which appeals lie to the Collector; but that of itself does not make much difference in view of the decision in Purshottam Janardan v. Mahadu Pandu 14 Bom. L.R...
Mulchand Kesaji Vs. Shiddappa Gurubasappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom18; (1946)48BOMLR571
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The questions referred to the full bench are as follows:-Where one creditor M has obtained a money decree against H and his two undivided sons, and another creditor S has also obtained a money decree against H alone but not against his sons, and assets are realized by the attachment and sale of the joint family property of H and his sons in execution of M's decree,(1) is S entitled to a rateable distribution in the assets under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, and (2) if so, is only H's share in the assets liable to rateable distribution, or are the entire assets liable to be distributed rateably (a) when S's decree is passed against H as the manager of the joint family or (6) when H's sons are under a pious obligation to pay off their father's debtsThe first question has to be decided by reference to the provisions of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the answer to it depends upon the construction of the words 'decrees for the payment of money p...
Emperor Vs. Samansab Sultansab Hukeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom187; (1946)48BOMLR764
Lokur, J.1. These are two applications made on behalf of the Government of Bombay for enhancement of the sentences passed on the two opponents by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Hukeri, on their conviction under Rule fil (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, for contravening the provisions of the Belgaum District Magistrate's Order No. W. A. R. 64, dated March 9, 1944. The learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 10 and Rs. 5 on the two opponents respectively. The opponent in application No. 448 of 1945 was found removing five bags containing 144 seers of rice worth Rs. 48 from Belgaum to Tlukari without the District Magistrate's permit. The opponent in application No. 449 of 1945 was found removing 56 seers of rice from Belgaum to Badkundri without the requisite permit of the District Magistrate. Both of them admitted that they were doing so, but pleaded that they were taking them for their own consumption. When the charge was framed and read out to them, both of them pleaded...
Narendrasingji Ranjitsingji Vs. Udesinghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom451; (1947)49BOMLR318
Sen, J.1. This suit was brought by the respondent to obtain a declaration that he had a right to a share in the Toda Giras allowance obtained by the defendants from the Government sub-treasury at Olpad, the share being one-third up to the year 1930 and half after the said year, a permanent injunction directing the defendants and their heirs and descendants to pay the plaintiff, his heirs and descendants a half share of whatever amount the defendants might receive in future as the said allowance and the sum of Us. 8,396-8-0 as arrears due to him with interest from the date of the suit as well as his costs. The material facts in this ease are as under. Pratapsinhji, the common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants, was the grantee of a Toda Giras allowance of Rs. 7,197 per year from the British Government. After his death his widow adopted one Khushalsinhji as his son. The allowance was continued to Khushalsinhji and a sanad was granted to him in 1866. On Khushalsinhji's death, di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›