Mumbai Court January 1952 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.
Prahlad Dalsukhrai and ors. Vs. Maganlal Muljibhai Tewar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom454; (1952)54BOMLR519; ILR1952Bom1090
Bhagwati, J.[1] This is a first appeal from the decision of the Assistant Bar Nyayadhish of the State of Rajpipla decreeing the plaintiffs' claim.Chhotalal Mulji, Maganlal Mulji and Sampatram Mulji were three brothers. Sampatram died on or about 24-1-1943, leaving him surviving his widow Bai Rukmini. During his lifetime Sampatram had acquired a usufructuary mortgage in respect of certain lands under a deed of usufructuary mortgage dated 4-7-1932, executed by Gumansingh Parabatsing, Hamirsingh Prabatsingh and Gemalsingh Parbatsingh of Pran-kad. On 16-6-1942, Bai Rukmini made a gift of one house situated at Naibhagol and the amount due under this deed of usufructuary mortgage to her brother Ravishankar Manishankar Pandya. On 10-10-1949, Ravishankar Manishankar Pandya executed a deed of trust in favour of certaintrustees including himself for establishing 'Bai Bukmini Balvikas Trust Fund' and transferred the property which had been thus gifted to him by Bai Rukmini to the trustees. Bai Ru...
Durga Prasad Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1225
ORDER1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by Shri K.L. Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1950 decided on the 19th March 1951. The revision application was originally before Rao J. who by an order dated the 30th November 1951 referred the case for disposal to a Division Bench. The case thus comes before us under the orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice.2. By his order now under revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, has set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused (applicant before us) because in his opinion the trial Judge had acted on evidence which was not open to him. For the purpose of determining whether the action of the Additional Sessions Judge was correct or not, it Is necessary to state a few facts.3. The accused in this case was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 59 of 1944 decided on the 2-4-1945. That suit was instituted by him on the allegation that he had advanced Rs. 60 to one Moujila...
Dundappa Virupaxappa Kallolgi and ors. Vs. Annaji Vardaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom65; (1952)54BOMLR811; ILR1953Bom15
ORDERBhagwati, J.(1) These are two second appeals against the decision of the learned Assistant Judge, Dharwar, dismissing the appeals and confirming the decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) at Gadag.(2) One Mudlingangouda was indebted to various parties. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 11 filed suits against him and obtained money decrees against him during his life-time. Defendants 1 to 5 also filed suits against him during his life-time but during the pendency of these suits he died. His legal representatives were brought on record of these suits and decrees were ultimately passed in favour of defendants 1 to 5 against defendants 12 to 15 who were the legal representatives of the deceased Mudlingangouda limited to the extent of the assets of Mudlingangouda come to their hands. Defendants 6 and 7 filed their suits after the death of Mudlingangouda against the legal representatives of Mudlingangouda and they also obtained money decrees against the legal representatives of...
Chandulal Sarupchand Vs. Bhau Buwajirao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom282; (1953)55BOMLR279; ILR1953Bom707
Chagla, C.J. (1) The defendant executed a promissory note on 11-5-1942 for Rs. 4,800 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed a suit on 18-4-1945, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, for Rs. 5,645 being the principal and interest on that promissory note. On 1-4-1942, a Board was established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (29 of 1939) and the suit was transferred to that Board. On 29-1-1947, the Board held that the defendant had failed to establish his status, whereupon on 9-4-1947, the suit was retransferred to the Civil Court, and on 29-6-1948, the Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In passing that decree the Court applied to the defendant the Dokkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, took accounts as required by Section 13, and passed a decree for Rs. 3,383-2-6 and not as prayed for by the plaintiff. It is not disputed that the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The only...
Karfule Ltd. Vs. Arical Daniel Varghese
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom73; (1952)54BOMLR664; ILR1953Bom170
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an application for refund of court-fees. An appeal was preferred to this Court from a decree of the City Civil Court, and the appeal was compromised out of Court. The appellants have now applied for refund of court-fees, and the question is whether we have the jurisdiction to order the refund. (2) Now, the only power of the Court to order a refund of court-fees arises from Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act, and it is not disputed that the case of the appellant does not fall under any of these three sections. The contention put forward by Mr. Pandya is that we should exercise our inherent power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and order the refund. The refund is sought on the ground that the appeal was withdrawn before it was heard by this Court, and that the judicial machinery which functions when a litigant comes to this Court did not function fully; and, therefore, to put it in substance, the argument is that the court-fees were not ear...
The Canara Bank Ltd. Vs. the Warden Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom35; (1952)54BOMLR661; ILR1952Bom1083
Ghagla C.J. [1] This civil application raises a very interesting question of the law of limitation. An order fixing the compensation was passed by a special officer under Section 8 (1), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. This was done on 28-12-1950. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 provides that an appeal shall lie against the decision of that officer, and in this ease the appeal lay to this Court. The appeal in fact was preferred on 28-2-1951. Section 8 (3) provides that such appeal shall be made within a period of 60 days from the date of the decision. The appeal was out of time by two days. The petitioners applied that delay should be condoned under Section 5, Limitation Act, as they had sufficient cause for the delay, and the question that arises for our determination is whether Section 5 applies to an appeal provided under the Land Requisition Act.[2] What calls for our interpretation in the first instance is Section 29 (2), Limitation Act. The section assumed its present form in 1922...
Haji Mahomed Haji Alli Mahomed Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom399; (1952)54BOMLR426; ILR1953Bom12
FACTS1. One Haji Mahomed Haji Alli Mahomed (accused No. 1) who was one of the trustees of a trust, which owned a building in Narayan Dhuru Street, put up an unauthorised construction on the ground floor of the building near the stair-case and let this portion to Kassam Ismail (complainant). The complainant's case was that the premises were let to him on his agreeing to pay Rs. 12 as rent and Rs. 7 for the consumption of electricity. It was also the complainant's case that when the premises were let to him, accused No. 1, gave him an electric connection from his own meter. The electric connection was cut off on or about March 1, 1951. The complainant then filed a complaint against the appellant and an electrician, who had actually cut off the connection under the instructions of accused No. 1, under Section 426 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code.After recording the evidence of the complainant and two other tenants of the same building, the trying Magistrate framed two charges agai...
Jethabhai Rambhai and ors. Vs. Rao Laxmanrao Bhailal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom96; (1952)54BOMLR479; ILR1952Bom988
Chagla, C.J. (1) The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. Their allegation was that they had a title to the land, that the defendants were in wrongful possession and that the defendants were liable to pay mesne profits for the period during which they were in wrongful possession. The suit was filed in a Court which was in the State of Baroda. Baroda was merged with the State of Bombay on August 1, 1949, and the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act was applied to the State of Baroda. The last date for making an application under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act as applied to the Baroda State was January 31, 1950, and an application was made by the defendants on January 9, 1951, for the transfer of this suit to the Debt Adjustment Court. The learned Civil Judge to whom the application was made tool the view that the suit could not be transferred at that stage. It is from that order that this revisional application has been preferred.(2) Now, as the suit...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›