Mumbai Court August 1951 Judgments
Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nazaralli Kassambhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: [1952]22CompCas82(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the decision of Mr. Justice Shah Holding that the suit of the Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd., which is in liquidation, by its Official Liquidator, should be dismissed on the ground that this court had no jurisdiction to try this suit The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000 and odd, and it is not disputed that but for certain special legislation to which I shall presently refer the suit would have been trouble by the City Civil Court in Bombay as the subject-matter of the suit is below Rs. 25,000.2. The question that we have to consider is whether the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has been ousted and whether special jurisdiction has been conferred upon the High Court by reason of the suit having been filed by the Official Liquidator in the course of the winding up of the Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. An Act was passed by the Dominion Legislature, being the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (X of 1949), to amend t...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Nazaralli Ka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom223; (1952)54BOMLR22; ILR1952Bom873
Chagla, C.J. [1] This appeal arises out of a decision of Shah J. holding that the suit of the Associated Banking Corporation of India, Ltd., which is in liquidation, by its Official Liquidator, should be dismissed on the ground that thisCourt had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000 and odd, and it is not disputed that but for certain special legislation to which I shall presently refer the suit would have been triable by the City Civil Court in Bombay as the subject matter of the suit is below Rs. 25,000.[2] The question that we have to consider is whether the jurisdiction of the City Civil Courthas been ousted and whether special jurisdiction has been conferred upon the High Court by reason of the suit having been fitted by the Official Liquidator in the course of the winding up of the Associated Banking Corporation of India, Ltd, An Act wag passed by the Dominion Legislature, being the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (Act X [10] of 1949), to amen...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavdas Devidas and ors. Vs. Vithaldas Vasudeodas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom229; (1952)54BOMLR94; ILR1952Bom570
Bavdekar, J. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Shah J., on appeal from an order refusing to sat aside an award. It is necessary to stale the facts, because a preliminary point has been taken before us that Shah J. having dismissed the appeal, no appeal lies now under the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of this Court.[2] Now, an appeal lies to a Division Bench of this Court from a judgment of a single Judge under the Letters Patent; but it is contended on behalf of the respondents that this right of appeal given by the Letters Patent is taken away by the provisions of Section 39, Arbitration Act. That section provides: 'An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to bear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order : An order: (i) superseding an arbitration ;(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case ;(in) modifying or correcting an award ;(iv) filing or refusing to file an ...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Savalaram Vs. Narayan Balkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom144; (1952)54BOMLR88; ILR1952Bom565
[1] This is an application in revision against a decision of the District Judge, Kolaba, by which ha held that opponent No. 1 was a debtor and his debts could be adjusted under the Bombay Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act. It appears that the debtor made an application under 8. 4 for adjustment of his debts on 17-6-1917, to the Mahad Court and he contended that a certain transaction was a mortgage though ostensibly a sale. The learned trial Judge held that the appellant was residing not in Mahad but in the Bhor State and also that he was cultivating lands personally not in Mahad but in the Bhor State and on that ground he dismissed the application of the debtor holding that he was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act. The learned District Judge came to a contrary conclusion. He hold that the debtor was an ordinary and permanent resident of Mahad. With regard to the second ground the learned Judge took the view that it was sufficient for the purposes of the Act if the debtor was cu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Tukaram Vs. Mahadeo Krishnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom227; (1952)54BOMLR90; ILR1952Bom560
ORDER(1) A rather interesting point arises on this revision application. The facts briefly are that one Shinde filed a suit against the petitioner in 1932 and he obtained a money decree. In execution of that decree a house belonging to the petitioner was sold on July 1, 1935, and the opponent purchased the house at the auction sale. The opponent's sale was confirmed by the Court on August 31, 1936. The petitioner's son filed a suit, being suit No. 438 of 1938 against the decree-holder and the auction purchaser for a declaration that the decree and the sale of the house were not binding on him as the alienation made by the petitioner was not for legal necessity. In the suit an injunction was issued against the opponent restraining him from taking possession, of the property. On June 30, 1941, the suit was dismissed. There was an appeal to the District Court and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed in 1944. There was a second appeal to this Court and the second appeal was dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Chandra Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom177; (1951)53BOMLR928; ILR1952Bom540
Chagla, C.J.[1] In this ease the accused is charged with hiving committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the sum of Rs. 2,500 on 12th April 1949. He is also charged in the alternative with having cheated in respect of the same sum on the same day. He was also charged with having committed criminal breach of trust On 20th April 1949, in respect of a sum of Rs. 900. He is also charged is the alternative with having cheated in respect of the same sum on the same day. [2] The question that arises for the determination of this Full Bench is whether the joinder of these four charges is in accordance with law. A large number of authorities were cited at the bar, but before considering them we might look at the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code itself with regard to the framing of charges. The basic section is Section 233 which contains a mandatory prevision and lays down the ordinary rule with regard to joinder of charges, and that section provides that for every distinct offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Manikchand Bharmappa and anr. Vs. Rachappa Virsangappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom226; (1952)54BOMLR85; ILR1952Bom534
Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Belgaum, by which he decreed the plaintiffs' suit on two mortgages to a certain extent and it is the plaintiffs who have come in appeal before us contending that they wore entitled to the full claim comprised is their auit.[2] One Veerappa and Gurshiddappa mortgaged to plaintiffs' father on 7-2-1917, a shop to secure a debt for Rs. 4,500. The period of the mortgage was fixed at five years and there was a provision for sale of the property in the event of the mortgage amount not being paid within the stipulated period. It was further provided in this mortgage that the mortgagee was to be in possession of the shop, that he was to recover the rent of Rs. 300 of the shop and appropriate it towards the interest fixed on the mortgage. The interest was fixed at 9 per cent, Therefore, in this mortgage there was provision with regard to the payment of interest to the extent of Rs. 300. That left a balance of R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›