Mumbai Court November 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.
Nagu Tukaram Ghatule Vs. Gopal Ganesh Gadgil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom405; (1953)55BOMLR458; ILR1954Bom10
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to limitation. In the suit from which the appeal arises the plaintiff had claimed accounts of the mortgage against defendant 1 and he had asked for a decree for redemption and possession of the property which is the subject-matter of the mortgage. The trial Court had held that the suit was barred by limitation. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff a contrary view has bean taken, with the result that the decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the plaintiff's suit has been remanded to the trial Court for taking accounts and for passing the usual preliminary redemption decree. It is this order which is challenged before us by Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of defendant 2.2. It appears that Narhari and Aba, who were undivided brothers, owned five pieces of land. On l-5-1920, they executed a simple mortgage in respect of three fields, to Rupchand, who is defendant 1, for Rs. 1,300. We are concerne...
Keshav Ganashyam Vs. Waman Rangaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom340; (1953)55BOMLR320; ILR1953Bom831
Chagla, C.J. A very interesting and important question under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act arises 011 this revision application. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of small Causes, Sawantwadi, to recover a debt, and the learned Judge held that the debt was extinguished under Section 15, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and non-suited the plaintiff; and the point that has been urged before me by Mr. Walawalkar on behalf of the plaintiff is that the learned Judge was in error in preventing the plaintiff from contending that the defendant was not a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and therefore the provisions of Section 15 would not apply.(2) In this case an application for adjustment of debt was made by a creditor under Section 4, and on that application the Court held that the defendant was a debtor and passed an award adjusting the debts of the defendant. The defen-dant's contention before the learned Small Causes Court Ju...
Raghunath Gambhirshet Vs. Ganpat Motiram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom284; (1953)55BOMLR298; ILR1953Bom827
Chagla, C.J. (1)This petition raises a rather important Question as to whether the Revenue Tribunal has the jurisdiction to review its own decisions. The facts briefly are that an application was made by the petitioner who is the landlord for possession from his tenant on the ground that he had not paid rent for three years. The Mamlatdar, the Prant Officer and the Revenue Tribunal all took the view that the landlord was entitled to possession and ordered possession. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 27-9-1958. On 20-3-1951, the opponent applied for review of the decision of the Tribunal, and on 13-6-1952, the Tribunal made an order reviewing its decision and holding that the landlord was not entitled to possession. The ground for the Tribunal coming to this decision was that on 23-7-1951, the Tribunal had taken the view in another matter that a landlord was not entitled to possession, even though the tenant was in default in payment of rent unless the landlord gave a notice and ...
Narayan Maruti Vs. District Judge, Kolaba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom288; (1953)55BOMLR314; ILR1953Bom942
Chagla, C.J. (1) A very interesting question arises on this petition as to the law of election applicable to the District Municipal elections. The petitioner is a Harijan and he and opponent 2 offered themselves as two candidates for one seat which was reserved for Harijans in Ward No. III of the Panvel Municipality for the triennial election of the Municipality of Panvel which was held on 10-6-1952. The votes were counted on 12-6-1952, and the petitioner secured 395 votes as against 342 secured by opponent No. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared duly elected. Opponent No. 2 then filed an election petition before the District Judge who set aside the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not 21 years of age at all material times. The learned Judge held that the petitioner was born on September 2, 1931, and hence he was below the age of 21,and, therefore, he held the election of the petitioner void and declared opponent No. 2 to be the duly elected coun...
irappa Bommaneppa and ors. Vs. Shankreppa Bommaneppa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom308; (1953)55BOMLR295; ILR1953Bom821
ORDER(1) This revisional application raises a question as to the payment of court-fees.(2) Petitioners 1 and 2 and one Gurusangappa are brothers and in 1939 Gurusangappa sold a family house to opponent 1. The petitioners have filed a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed executed by their brother is not binding on them and for recovering joint possession of their two-thirds share. The contention in the Court below was that the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act. In other words, the contention was that this was a suit for a declaratory decree where a consequential relief was prayed for. The learned trial Judge held that the suit was for possession and it fell under Section 7(v), and, therefore, the court-fees had to be paid on an 'ad valorem.' basis.(3) Mr. Albal, before me, has contended that, if the suit did not fall under Section 7(iv)(c) it fell under Section 7(iv)(b), in which ease also the court-fees payable would not be on an 'ad valorem' basis. Now, the princip...
L.S. Raju and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom297; (1953)55BOMLR191; ILR1953Bom670
FACTSOne L.S. Raju (accused No. 1) was a leading lawyer of Bangalore, was also the Deputy Leader of the Congress Party In Mysore Legislature and was the President of the Civil Liberties Union. L.R. Jayaram (accused No. 2) was his son. Dasappa Naidu (accused No. 3) was a business man, a client and also a close associate of accused No. 1. Mrs. Agnes David (accused No. 4) was a domestic servant who for some time served in the house of P. Medapa, the Chief Justice of Mysore at Bangalore. The case for the prosecution was that accused No. 1 and the Chief Justice of Mysore, Medapa, were on very strained terms and that accused No. 1 attempted to encompass the death of the Chief Justice by various means. He tried in the first instance spiritual means to bring about the death of the Chief Justice, and having failed to do so, he engaged the services of accused No. 4. Accused No. 4, before the material date, which was 29-1-1951, was engaged as a domestic servant in the house of the Chief Justice a...
Vadilal Chhaganlal Soni and ors. Vs. Gokaldas Mansukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom408; (1953)55BOMLR452; ILR1953Bom773
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the mortgagees against the preliminary decree for redemption which has been passed by both the Courts below. The property in suit is an open plot bearing Tikka No. 17, Lot No. 11, measuring 34 sq. yds. It was mortgaged on 9-11-1384, for Rs. 176, The agreement between the parties was that the mortgagor was to redeem the mortgage 99 years after its execution and the mortgagee was given full authority to build any structure on this plot after spending any amount he liked. The mortgagor undertook to repay this amount to the mortgagee at the time of redemption. When the suit was filed by the plaintiffs to redeem this mortgage, the mortgagee pleaded that the claim was premature; 99 years had not still passed and so the amount under the mortgage could not be said to have become due within the meaning of Section 60, T. P. Act. This was the contention of the mortgagee. The Courts below have held that the two material stipulations in the mortgage amounte...
Bansilal Ramgopal Bhattad Vs. Harischandra Tatya Bhambhure
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom420; (1953)55BOMLR444; ILR1953Bom762
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. Section 23, Bombay Money-lenders Act, 31 of 1947, provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or any law for the time being in force, no Court shall in respect of any loan, whether advanced before or after the date on which this Act comes into force, decree, on account of interest, a sum greater than the principal of the loan due on the date of the decree. Is the rule laid down in this section retrospective and can it be invoked by a debtor in an appeal against his creditor when the Act did not apply at the time when the dispute between the parties had been decided by the trial Court? These are the two questions which arise for our decision in the present appeal.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was a possessory mortgage and it was executed by the plaintiff's grandfather in favour of Tukaram on 4-9-1384, for Rs. 1,350. The property mortgaged was a house. The mortgagee was to remain in posse...
Gangadhar Balkrishna Vs. Dattatraya Baliram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom424; (1953)55BOMLR433; ILR1953Bom1055
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The principal question which, arises in this appeal is whether art-agreement entered into by the next friend or guardian of a minor without the sanction of the Court is entirely void or is voidable at the option of the minor. A subsidiary question of limitation also arises, but its decision will depend upon the answer that is given to the first question. Both the Courts below have found that the agreement entered into by the guardian of the plaintiff was void and so his suit was within time. When this matter was argued before Dixit J., he was apparently disposed to take the view that the agreement in question was voidable and the present suit was barred; but he was requested to refer this matter to a Division Bench because there were conflicting judgments on this point. That is why this case has been referred to a Division Bench and has come before us for final disposal.2. The facts leading to the present litigation are few and there is really no dispute about it....
Kanji Karsondas and ors. Vs. Nathubhai Khimji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom390; (1953)55BOMLR429; ILR1953Bom935
Gajendragadkar, J.(1) The short point which arises in this revisional application is what is the meaning and denotation of the expression 'the expenses of the commission' used in O, 26, Rule 15. A suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts, No. 2 of 1952, has been filed by the opponent against the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon, on 20-2-1952. On 11-9-1952, the plaintiff applied that a Commissioner should be appointed to examine five of his witnesses who reside at Bombay, which is at a distance o more than 200 miles from the Court. The learned Judge has allowed this application. At the time when this application was considered by him, it was argued by the defendants that before the commission was ordered to be issued, the plaintiff, should be asked to deposit the costs which would be incurred by the defendants in going to Bombay before the Commissioner, This prayer has been rejected, and in the present revisional application preferred by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›