Mumbai Court February 1954 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.
Virgonda Lingangonda Vs. Malgonda Virgonda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom148; (1954)56BOMLR607; ILR1954Bom1193
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal raises a short question under Section 15 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act. A decree passed in civil suit No. 82 of 1936 is sought, to be executed in the present darkhast proceedings and the execution is resisted by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the decretal rights which are sought to be enforced in the present execution proceedings amount to a debt within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and the said debt has been extinguished by the operation of the provisions of Section 15(1) of the said Act.2. The point thus presented is short and interesting, but the facts leading to it are somewhat complicated. The property in suit originally belonged to Singadi. On February 7, 1910, Singadi executed a mortgage over this property in favour of Mallappa for Rs. 200. It would appear that Mallappa had advanced several sums on money bonds to Singadi and the extent of these loans was about Rs. 500. In 1915 a dispute arose b...
Bhima Balu Vs. Basangouda Mamgouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom513; (1954)56BOMLR520; ILR1953Bom1080
ORDERGajendragadkar, J. 1. This second appeal raises a short but important question of law under the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, No. 67 of 1948. The facts leading to this point of law are few and they are not in dispute. Krishnarao, who was the owner of s. No. 372, agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff on October 12, 1948, for Rs. 5,925. In pursuance of this agreement, Rs. 100 were paid as earnest money and a period of three months was fixed for the performance of the contract. On 28-12-1948, the Tenancy Act came into operation. Thereafter, on 6-1-1949, a sale-deed was effected by Krishnarao in favour of the plaintiff. In the present suit filed on September 9, 1949, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that the sale-deed passed in his favour was valid and he asked for recovery of the rent due in respect of the land conveyed to him. The defence substantially was that the sale-deed was void under the provisions of Section 64 of the Tenancy Act and so the plaintiff w...
In Re: Jagdish Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom79; (1954)56BOMLR525; [1954]24CompCas241(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting question arises as to the liability of a company to pay stamp duty in respect of a transfer of shares not duly stamped, and the question arises in the following way. The Jagdish Mills Ltd., is a public limited company which was incorporated in Baroda under the Baroda State Companies Act of Samvat year 1975. It appears that between 1942 and 1-4-1949, various transfer deeds were sent to the company duly executed from outside the Baroda State, and inasmuch as the transferor or the transferee did not have the necessary Baroda stamps they used to send moneys to the company and the practice was that the company used to buy the requisite Baroda stamps, affix them to the transfer deeds and get them registered.It was found subsequently that two employees of the company had misappropriated these moneys and had not stamped the transfer deeds as required by law. The company coming to know of this, very honestly and properly drew the attention of the revenue auth...
In Re: the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom462; (1954)56BOMLR528; ILR1954Bom1074
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is whether a document dated 23-8-1951, is a mortgage on which duty is leviable under Article 40 (b), Stamp Act, or is an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds. The document mentions that the sum advanced is Rs. 75,000 and it is repayable on 23-8-1053.Then Clause (2) contains various covenants by the mortgagor. Sub-clause (a) deals with the payment of interest. Sub-clause (b) deals with payment of costs, charges and expenses between attorney and client. Sub-clause (c) deals with the payment of compound interest. Sub-clause (d) deals with the obligation of the mortgagor to execute a first legal mortgage. Sub-clause (e) deals with the payment of insurance. Sub-clause (f) provides for giving of a notice by the mortgagor on his failure to pay the amount on the due date. Then Clause (3) deals with acceleration of the due date when any of the contingencies mentioned in that clause arise.The question is whether looking to the...
Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ262
ORDERSinha, C.J.(1) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution in effect prays for a writ of mandamus to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh directing it to prosecute respondents 2 and 3 for offences under Section 22, Minimum Wages Act (11 of 1948).(2) It is necessary to state the following facts for the determination of the points raised in this case.Petitioner No. 1 is the Nagpur Glass Works, Limited, and the second petitioner is the Central Glass Factory, Nagpur. Respondents 2 and 3 respectively are the Swastik Glass Works, Chanda, and the Onama Glass Works Limited, Jabalpur. They are factories manufacturing and dealing in articles of glass. By a gazette notification dated 21-8-1950 the State Government fixed the minimum rate of wages payable to employees in glass factories under the provisions of Section 5(2), Minimum Wages Act (which for the sake of brevity shall be referred to in this Judgment as 'the Act').In pursuance of the notification the State Government issu...
Govind Sadashiv Pathak Vs. Sadashiv Shivrao Nisal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom93; (1954)56BOMLR597; ILR1954Bom1173
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal which raises the question of the maintainability of a certain darkhast filed by the decree-holder. In our opinion, if the decree-holder finds himself in a position where he cannot execute the decree which he has obtained against the judgment-debtor, he has largely to thank himself. This case is a glaring instance of a litigant obtaining a decree and then doing nothing more than keep it alive by filing darkhast after darkhast.2. The facts briefly are that the appellant, who is the decree-holder, filed a suit in the Ahmednagar Court, being suit No. 5 of 1934, and obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor, the respondent, on 12-2-1935. The decree was ex parte, and the respondent applied to set aside the ex parte decree, and the Court set aside the ex. parte decree on 5-11-1936. The respondent was again absent and an ex parte decree was again passed on 26-11-1936.On 25-2-1935, the appellant applied to the Ahmednagar Court for the tr...
Bapu Parashram Chandar and ors. Vs. Kanhayalal Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom145; (1954)56BOMLR633
1. The plaintiff Kanhayalal Mohanlal filed Suit No. 25 of 1938 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmed-nagar against five defendants for a decree for sale on a mortgage dated May 31, 1926, executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendants being agriculturists, the suit was tried under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and on February 20, 1940, a decree was passed declaring that an amount of Rs. 5,000 was due to the plaintiff under the mortgage and providing that 'defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 do pay the same to the plaintiff together with costs of the suit and future interest on Rs. 3,000 at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the date of institution of suit till the amount is fully paid.' The defendants were directed to pay the amount decreed by annual instalments of Rs. 1,000. The first instalment was to be paid on October 1, 1940. It was provided in the decree that if any Instalment remained unpaid, for recovery thereof an application under Section I5B ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›