Mumbai Court November 1955 Judgments
Tarachand Bapuchand Vs. Gaibihaji Ahmed Bagwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom632
ORDER1. This revisional application challenges the validity of the order passed by the learned Judge allowing the Opponent to withdraw his appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit and it is urged by Mr. Sukhtankar that in granting leave Under Order 23, Rule 1(2) (b), of the Code the learned Appellate Judge has clearly assumed jurisdiction not vested in him because the defect alleged by the Opponent and accepted by the learned Judge cannot be said to amount to a formal defect within the meaning of the said rule. This contention appears to me to be well-founded and must be accepted.The material facts are very few. The property in suit originally belonged to one Nimbalkar. Nimbalkar created three mortgages over this property and other properties in 1918, 1921 and 1926. The mortgagee in all the three cases was one Jambappa Awate. The mortgagee brought a suit on these three mortgages to recover the mortgage amount in 1931. This suit was decreed in 1851, the mortgaged property was put to sal...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Sipahimalani Vs. FidahusseIn Vallibhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR344
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai who issued a writ of certiomri on a petition presented by the respondent. By this petition he challenged an order of the Custodian who held that one Kassam Abba was an evacuee and his tenancy right in rooms Nos. 13 to 16 on the first floor of Haji Yusuf Building had vested in him.2. The first order in these proceedings was made by the Assistant Custodian on January 2, 1953, and he held that Kassam Abba was an evacuee, and that the tenancy rights in these premises vested in the Custodian. From that order the respondent appealed to the Custodian and the Custodian passed the order, to which reference has been made, on February 10, 1953, confirming the order of the Assistant Custodian and dismissing the appeal. On April 10, 1954, the respondent went in revision to the Custodian General, and on April 10, 1954, the revision application was dismissed, and the present petition was filed on April 7, 1953.3. The first con...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderdas Sobhraj Vs. Liberty Pictures
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom618
1. The Plaintiffs sue to recover two sums of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 34,000 with interest from the Defendants. The Defendants are a partnership firm of which at all material times the partners were according to the Plaintiffs' Jamnadas, Lavji, Abbasbhai and Vyas.It is the Plaintiffs' case that on 16-6-1948 the plaintiffs lent and advanced to the Defendants for the purposes of their business a loan of Rs. 10,000/-at interest. As collateral security for repayment of that loan Jamnadas, who had approached the Plaintiffs for the loan, delivered to the Plaintiffs a postdated cheque for Rs. 10,000/-. That cheque which was post-dated 19-6-1949 was drawn on behalf of the Defendants by Jamnadas and made out in favour of the Plaintiffs.The cheque was presented by the Plaintiffs on 20-3-1949 for payment and again on 22-6-1949 but it was dishonoured. The memo of the Bank showed the remarks : 'not arranged for'. The Plaintiffs intimated about the dishonour of the cheque to all the partners of the Defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal and Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Natwarlal Chunilal Bhalakia and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom257
Gokhale, J.1. First Appeal No. 134 of 1951 is filed against the decree passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ahmedabad in Civil suit No. 163 Of 1949 declaring that defendant No. 1 Company was not authorised and entitled to give or pay any extra remuneration to its Secretary, Treasurer and Agent for managing its affairs and on its behalf the affairs of the Bhalakia Mills Company Ltd., and the resolution passed on 20-7-1949 by the defendant No. 1 Company in that connection was ultra vires and illegal, and restraining the defendant No. 1 Com-many by a permanent injunction from acting up to and from paying in terms of the aforesaid resolution extra remuneration to defendant 5. 2. The circumstances which gave rise tothe suit may be shortly stated as follows:--In 1927, one Chandulal Karsandas Mashruwala,Chhotalal Bhalakia and some others thought oferecting a Textile Mill at Ahmedabad, and withthat object in view they floated Chandulal andCo. Ltd. the present defendant 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sinaeen MohiddIn Malbari Vs. Kaushal Kishore Bhagwandas Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR339
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These two revisional applications raise a short question about the proper Court-fees leviable on cross-objections preferred by the tenants in both the cases. The learned District Judge, before whom these cross-objections were preferred, has directed the tenants to pay adequate Court-fees on the footing that the decree for the payment of arrears of rent which has been passed against them is a decree for the payment of money and it is necessary that the cross-objecting respondents should declare what amount they propose to dispute out of the decretal amount and should pay Court-fees on it on an ad valorem basis. This view is challenged by the petitioners in both the cases before me.2. It would be convenient to mention the material facts leading to both therevisional applications. Civil Revision Application No. 863 of 1955 arises from Civil Suit No. 1465 of 1953 filed by the landlord against the tenant for ejectment. In this suit the landlord claimed, arrears of rent ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Jhunjhunwala and Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Jiwanlal and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR432
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai and it came to be passed under the following circumstances. The suit out of which. this appeal arises was filed for damages for breach of a contract. Mr. Justice Tendolkar heard the suit, held that there was a breach, and also determined the date of the breach, and then referred, the suit to the Commissioner to ascertain the damages on that basis. The Commissioner heard the reference, ascertained the damages, and exceptions were filed to the Commissioner's report, and Mr. Justice Desai after disposing of the exceptions passed a decree on. November 1, 1954, for damages. The present appeal has been preferred on December 8, 1954, and one of the points raised in this appeal is that Mr. Justice Tendolkar was in error in determining the date of the breach as June 14, 1951.2. Mr. K. T. Desai raises a preliminary objection that it is not open to the appellants to raise that contention inasmuch as that contention was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Jagannath Vs. R.S. Mundade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom174; 1956CriLJ385
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is a reference made to us by the District Judge, Jalgaon under Section 26, Bombay Pleaders Act. The Pleader concerned was charged with having carried on various businesses while he was practising as a pleader and the business with regard to which charges were framed were (i) a commission agency shop run in the name of 'Ramchandra Mundade Pleader', (ii) a grocery and provision store run in the name of 'Mundade Home Service Ltd.,' and (iii) a cement business run In the name of 'Jaihind Trading Company'.The learned District Judge with regard to the commission agency business held that the plead er carried on the business from 1946 to 1949. The case of the pleader was that he had carried on the business merely for the purpose of winding up, that being a business of his father. The District Judge came to the conclusion that it was not carried on merely for the purpose of winding up.With regard to the Mundade Home Service Ltd., this business was being carried on in the r...
Tag this Judgment!Akbaralli Abedalli Bohari Vs. Godha Lahanu Dhangar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Bom105; (1956)58BOMLR335; ILR1956Bom433
ORDER1. This revisional application raises a short question as to whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the lower appellate Court was competent. The lower appellate Court has held that the appeal was incompetent and Mr. Madbhavi for the petitioner disputes the correctness of this finding. 2. The point arises in this way. On the 5th of February, 1939, a sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 2,000. The property conveyed was Survey No. 12. In 1944 the vendor brought a suit No. 1 of 1944 under the Dekkhan Act. Ho claimed a decree for accounts and redemption. This suit was compromised. Under the terms of compromise the vendor was under an obligation to pay specific amounts within the period specified by the compromise decree. On his failure to comply with this order, the vendee was held entitled to obtain possession of the land. The vendor failed to comply with the directions issued by the compromise decree and the vendee filed an execution application a...
Tag this Judgment!The Chalisgaon Borough Municipality Vs. Multanchand Fulchand Sancheti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom675; (1956)58BOMLR375; ILR1956Bom502
1. Multanchand Fulchand Sancheti, whom I will hereafter refer to as 'the respondent', constructed a building within the limits of the Borough Municipality of Chalisgaon. The completion certificate in respect of the building was issued by the Municipality on 18-10-1951. The building bears Municipal Census No. 331. The Borough Municipality of Chalisgaon is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 18 of 1935.On 31-3-1952, the Chief Officer of the Municipality inspected the site and amended the assessment list and incorporated therein an entty relating to the house showing that the respondent was liable to pay general house tax in respect of that house. The Chief Officer also issued a notice to the respondent inviting objections against the valuation of house No. 331.The notice way received by the respondent on 2-4-1952, and he submitted his objection to the valuation. On 30-6-1952, the Standing Committee resolved that the assessment made by the Chief Officer was pro...
Tag this Judgment!Nutan Mills Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom336; ILR1956Bom575; (1956)ILLJ215Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting and important question arises under the Employees' State Insurance Act (34 of 1948) as to the liability of the employer to pay special contribution on the compensation payable by the employer to his employees who have been laid-off under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The few facts which are necessary to be considered in order to dispose of this reference are that in the last quarter of 1953 the Nutan Mills became liable to pay compensation for layoff in the sum of Rs. 1,312-15-0 and on this amount it paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation incorporated under the Act a sum of Rs. 9-13-6 as special contribution under Section 73A, Employees' State Insurance Act.In the first quarter of 1954 the Mills became liable to pay lay-off compensation in the sum of Rs. 521-11-9 and on this amount it paid a sum of Rs. 3-15-0 as special contribution. On 12-5-1954 the Mills called upon the Corporation to refund these two amounts as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »