Mumbai Court August 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.
Ramchandrarao Gangadharrao Vs. Vithal Keshav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR754
Macklin, J.1. These cross-appeals arise out of orders passed by an executing Court. The decree under execution provided that the debt should be paid by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 out of the family property which was in the possession of defendants Nos. 1 to 8, and it laid a charge on certain property for that amount; and it went on to say that the plaintiff was entitled to put up for sale, if necessary, those properties in execution proceedings. The decree is a decree for maintenance; and what the executing Court has done is to permit execution to take place against certain movable property and has at the same time refused to allow a certain cash allowance to be attached. The judgment-debtors have appealed against the order allowing any movable property to be attached, and the plaintiff's heir has appealed against the refusal of the executing Court to attach the cash allowance.2. Dealing first with the appeal by the defendants, their learned advocate's contention is that from the fact of a...
Baldevdas Vallabhdas Vs. Devendraprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom462; (1947)49BOMLR306
Macklin, J.1. This matter comes before us in the alternative by way of appeal or by way of revision with regard to an order passed by the District Court of Ahmedabad on an application for directions made to it in accordance with the provisions of a scheme framed by this Court in 1934 for the Swaminarayan temple at Ahmedabad. Put generally, the application by the petitioners was made in connection with objections which they had taken to certain items of the budget of the institution framed in 1940. The learned Judge held that the matters with respect to which they had come to him were matters falling within the compass of the scheme, and also that there was no reason for him to interfere on the merits. It is against this order that the parties have now come to the High Court.2. Regarded as an application in revision, it is clear that it does not come within the purview of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the scheme itself gives jurisdiction to the Court to hear matters ...
Harkisondas Nanjibhai Vs. Chaturbhuj Prabhudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom434; (1947)49BOMLR425
Blagden, J.1. This is a motion by the plaintiff in the suit against defendant No. 3 for an injunction restraining him, his servants and agents 'from recovering any moneys due by the Assam Oil Co., Ltd., or the Burmah Shell Oil, Storage and Distributing Co of India, Ltd., in respect of the supply of 100 tons of Fullers Earth.'2. The circumstances under which it comes to be made are, very briefly, as follows, according to the plaintiff:3. For some time before May 13 this year the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in partnership. Negotiations started between the firm and the Assam Oil Company, Ltd., for the sale by the former to the latter of a quantity of Fullers Earth. According to the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in fraud of the plaintiff, their partner, negotiated the sale not on behalf or in the name of the firm but in the name or on behalf of a business called 'C. Bhuj Goradia', a name which a very brief study reveals to have a striking resemblance to that of defenda...
Sundrabai Sonba Tendulkar Vs. Ramabai Jayaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom396; (1947)49BOMLR298
Dixit, J.1. This appeal raises a pure question of law and the suit giving rise to the appeal was filed under the following circumstances.2. The property in suit, which consists of 16 parcels of land with a house standing on one of them, belonged to one Jayaram, husband of defendant No. 1. He had no issue, had grown old and was in indifferent health. Sundrabai (the plaintiff) appears to be related to Jayaram. The plaintiff's husband Sonba was doing business in Bombay. Jayaram appears to have pressed Sonba and his wife to go to, and stay with, him in order to manage Jayaram's property.3. On August 15, 1938, Jayaram and his wife Ramabai (defendant No. 1) passed in favour of the plaintiff a deed of gift of his property.4. Subsequently disputes seem to have arisen between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, Jayaram having died some time after the deed of gift. The plaintiff relying upon the gift filed in 1941 the present suit against defendant No. 1 and her tenants (defendants Nos. 2 to 7) a...
Pirozshah Dajibhoi Malaowalla Vs. Najamai Rustomji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom464; (1947)49BOMLR303
Macklin, J.1. [After stating the facts and dealing with one of defendant No. 1's contentions the judgment proceeded:]2. But a further contention against the plaintiff's suit is that the document as a whole required registration, since the consideration for the document cannot be separated so as to attach part of it to the maintenance clause and the other part to the residence clause; so the document as a whole cannot be received in evidence of any agreement which it contains, even that part of it which provides merely for the plaintiff's maintenance. For this contention reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Nemtulla v. Safiabu (1934) 37 Bom. L.R. 82 and a decision of the High Court of Lahore in Bisheshar Lal v. Musst. Bhuri. I.L.R.(1920) 1 Lah. 436 In each decision the separability of the document into a clause requiring registration and a clause not requiring registration was treated as dependant upon separability of the consideration. But our attention has been directed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›