Mumbai Court December 1953 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.
Bhikaji Ramchandra Paranjpe and anr. Vs. Pratap Spinning, Weaving and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Bom157; (1954)56BOMLR402; ILR1954Bom944
ORDER1. This is an application in revision arising out of proceedings for declaration of the standard rent of certain premises, and the facts are that the opponent company passed a rent note in favour of the petitioners who are the landlords on 18-3-1909, in respect of certain premises. The rent note granted a lease for 20 years in favour of the opponent company and the rent fixed under the rent note was Rs. 600. The rent note gave the option to the opponent company to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years on the same rent and the opponent company- availed itself of that option and the lease was renewed for a further period of 20 years.In 1949 when the lease expired, the opponent company became a statutory tenant and was protected from eviction by the Rent Act. It appears that when subletting was permissible the opponent company sublet the premises. The position of the premises when the rent note was executed in 1909 was that they consisted of an open plot of land with nine ...
P.D. Aswani Vs. Kavashah Dinshah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom426; (1954)56BOMLR467; ILR1954Bom857
Chagla, C.J.1. Opponents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 who were defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit obtained a lease from opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are the plaintiffs to the suit, on 27-3-1942. The lease was to commence from 1-4-1942, and its duration was up to 31-8-1943, with an option to the lessees to renew it for eight months. The lessees exercised the option and thereafter the lease was renewed from time to time & it was finally renewed on 1-11-1948, and its duration was up to 31-10-1949. On 1-9-1949, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 sublet the premises to the petitioner, who is defendant No. 4 in the suit.On 29-9-1949, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 informed the plaintiffs that they were going to surrender the premises on 31-10-1949, and that defendant No. 4 would give them possession. As defendant No. 4 refused to surrender possession on 31-10-1949, the plaintiff's filed a suit for ejectment on 16-1-1950. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but in appeal the learned Assistant Judge has reversed the decision...
Genuji Ramji and anr. Vs. Murlidhar Laxman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom417; (1954)56BOMLR462; ILR1954Bom1131
Dixit, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants to recover from the defendants-respondents a sum of Rs. 550 with future interest and costs.2. On 30-10-1880, a possessory mortgage was executed by one Rama, who is the plaintiffs' father, in favour of one Eknath, the grandfather Of the present defendants, in order to secure a sum of Hs. 600. On July 5, 1889, another possessory mortgage was executed by Rama in favour of Eknath in order to secure a further sum of Rs. 50.3. In 1944 the plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of the two mortgages and on April 18, 1940, there was a decree for redemption and according to the decree the plaintiffs were to pay to the defendants a sum of Rs. 650.4. The mortgaged property was a house and the plaintiff's alleged that the house was pulled down wrongfully by the mortgagees while in possession. When suit No. 555 of 1944 was filed the plaintiffs stated in the plaint that they would file a separate suit to recover damages in ...
Sateri Shiddappa Gadkari Vs. Rudrappa Shetteppa Bachenhatti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom463; (1954)56BOMLR394; ILR1954Bom930
Bavdekar, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit, which had been filed by the appellant plaintiff for recovery of a piece of land, which, it has been found now by both the lower Courts, was intended to be included in a sale deed executed by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title, Baswant Sattu Gadakari alias Gadadavar, Sattava wife of Rama Gadakari alias Gadadavar and Kareppa Hasapur alias Karodi in favour of the defendant. It was, however, upon the findings of both the trial Court and the appellate Court, not included in the sale deed, because of a mutual mistake.The plaintiff-appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the land from the defendant's vendors. He purchased the land on 23-5-1947, and on 14-8-1947, filed the suit from which the present appeal arises for recovery of possession of the land. The defendant filed his written statement on 10-6-1948, and his principal defence therein was that of a mutual mistake, which prevented the inclusion of the land in the sale deed, when the...
Boarland (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Madras Electric Supply Corporation ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: [1953]23ITR365(Bom)
Singleton L., J.1. The Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., later referred to as the company, was incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1862-1900, on January 27, 1906, with the object of carrying on in India the business of an electric light and power undertaking in all its branches. The undertaking was carried on under three licences granted by the Government of Madras. Under the first two licences the local authority, with the sanction of the local government, had an option to purchase such portion of the undertaking as was in the area for which it was constituted, and a similar option was given to the local government if the local authority did not elect to purchase. Under the third licence the Governor-General in Council had the option to purchase. The option was exercisable in each case on August 29, 1947. The company carried on its business until that date. Notices to exercise the options were duly given. 2. On August 27, 1947, an agreement was entered into between the Gover...
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. P.D. Vyas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR917
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Alembic Chemical Works Company, Ltd., and one of its directors, Mr. P. C. Hathi, against Mr. P. D. Vyas, constituting the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Baroda Chemical Works Kamdar Mandal for an appropriate writ, direction or order for setting aside an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on October 9, 1953, preventing Mr. Hathi from appearing in the proceedings before the Tribunal.2. It is not necessary to state at any length the facts that gave rise to this petition because in so far as the decision of this petition turns on any questions of fact, as I will later point out, that was a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide and this Court will not interfere with any decision on a question of fact by the Tribunal.3. The question of law that is argued on this petition and which is of so great an importance that contrary to the usual practice the Industrial Tribunal has thought ...
Sadashiv Govind Samant Vs. Sheduram Sukhdev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Bom67; (1954)56BOMLR984
1. Now, the first thing to be considered is: Was there the procuring and applying of process of the Court? At the commencement o! the hearing Mr. Jape, learned counsel for the defendant, raised the contention that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action because all that the plaint showed, so it was said, was that the defendant had procured the order of attachment and that did not afforda complete cause of action for a suit for damages for wrongful attachment.It was also urged that it had been held by this Court that merely showing a warrant of attachment to the defendant against whom an order of attachment before judgment had been passed would not amount to enforcing the process (sic) the Court. The suggestion was that it was (sic) cumbent on the plaintiff to aver facts necessary to show that there was actual attachment(sic) seizure of the goods of the plaintiff. The argument proceeded that taking the facts set out (sic) the plaint as correct, they did not amount to complete ca...
Magandas Bhukandas Vs. Bhalchandra Ramrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom436; (1954)56BOMLR414; ILR1954Bom840
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an execution appeal which raises a short question of limitation under Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. On 15-7-1927, an aware decree was passed in favour of the appellant for Rs. 1,800. The decretal amount was made payable by annual instalments and it was provided that, if there was a default in the payment of three instalments, the whole of the decretal amount could be recovered. Several darkhasts were filed by the decree-holder to recover the decretal amount. The last one of these was No. 815 of 1937; it had been filed on 10-7-1937, and it was finally dispose of on 17-10-1938.On 22-1-1941, the decree-holder himself filed an application in insolvency against the judgment-debtor, which was Application No. 1 of 1941. Pending this application, he filed a darkhast No. 124f of 1942 to execute his award, decree. This darkhast was filed on 17-11-1942. Meanwhile, the insolvency proceedings continued and the judgment-debtor was adjudged an insolvent ...
Jagannath Murlidhar Rathi Vs. Rao Sahib Rupchand Motiram Lathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR916
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a notice of motion for recording a compromise and Mr. Purshottam on behalf of the plaintiff has raised a preliminary objection that the notice of motion is not competent because defendant No. 3 has not obtained leave to defend and is not therefore entitled to initiate any proceedings in this suit.2. Now, it appears that conditional leave had been granted to defendant No. 3, and he had to deposit a certain sum of money by a date which has expired long ago and the deposit has not been made. It is, therefore, clear that he is not entitled to appear and defend the suit; but the question is whether that precludes him from taking out a notice of motion for recording a compromise.Order XXXVII, Rule 3, provides that in a summary suit the Court may give leave to the defendant to appear and defend a suit. This obviously is defence on the merits, and the marginal note in fact says 'Defendant showing defence on merits to have leave to appear.' When one turns to the provisio...
Govind Krishna and ors. Vs. Malhar Narsingrao Nadgu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom410; (1954)56BOMLR485; ILR1954Bom897
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Shah because it raises apoint of limitation on which there is apparently a conflict in the reported decisions of this Court. The point of limitation arises in this way :2. A compromise decree was passed in a mortgage suit on 27-2-1935. This decree directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff within six months Bs. 2,530 with costs and future interest at 6 per cent, per annum. On payment of this amount, the defendant was to redeem the property from the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. The decree further provided for a charge on some other properties of the judgment-debtor which were not the subject-matter of the mortgage. The decree, besides, gave the decree-holder the right to recover the balance, if any, personally from the defendant.In accordance with the terms of this decree a final decree was drawn on 17-3-1936. Thereafter the decree-holder filed darkhast No. 418 of 1936, and in execution pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »