Mumbai Court March 1955 Judgments
Velji Lakhamsey and Co. Vs. B.R. Banaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR993; [1955]25CompCas395(Bom)
Coyajee, J.1. In this summons the claimants dispute the order made by the liquidator refusing to admit the claim of the claimants as preferential creditors and the claim arises in the following manner. The firm of Velji Lakhamsey had prior to April, 1949, a current account with the bank in liquidation and on 29th April, 1949, there was a credit of Rs. 14,000 odd in that account. As Velji Lakhamsey wanted to pay a certain amount to Podar Trading Co. Ltd., they added a further amount of Rs. 7,000 odd making a total of Rs. 22,776-3-4. On 29th April, 1949, the claimants sent a cheque in the sum of Rs. 22,600 with a letter asking the bank to issue a draft payable to Podar Trading Company in the sum of Rs. 22,600. The bank in liquidation on 29th April, 1949, issued a pay slip in favour of Podar Trading Company or order. Podar Trading Company presented this through their bankers, the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China for payment, but the bank in liquidation failed to pay this amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidas Ranchhoddas and ors. Vs. Savitabai Hargovindas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom54; (1955)57BOMLR988; ILR1955Bom955
Chagla, C.J. 1. This appeal raises a rather important question as to the authority of counsel to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client. The plaintiffs filed a suit, in which the compromise is alleged to have been arrived at, to eject the defendant who they alleged was a licensee.The suit appeared as a short cause before Coyajee, J. This was on 22-6-1954. Before the suit reached hearing terms of settlement, were discussed between the defendant & her husband and the solicitors on the two sides, and it was agreed that the suit should be placed at the bottom of the list so that the consent terms may be handed in.At 4 p. m. the suit reached hearing and counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Laud, and counsel for the defendant. Mr. Bhat, applied to the Court that the suit should be placed at the bottom of the list as negotiations were going on. The learned Judge was not prepared to place the suit at the bottom of the list and asked the parties to discuss the matter in Court.Thereupon the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Kumar and Co. Vs. Official Assignee of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom38; (1955)57BOMLR979; ILR1955Bom941
Chagla, C. J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Coyajee J. by which he granted relief to the Official Assignee on a notice of motion taken out toy him. It appears that one Daulatram gave notice of suspension of payment on 2-8-1951. On 9-8-1951, the creditors presented a petition for adjudication and Daulatram was adjudicated insolvent on 21-8-1951, and the Official Assignee is the assignee of his effects.Now, prior to the petition and prior to the notice of suspension given by Daulatram, an agreement was entered into on 17-5-1951, betweenthe insolvent and the appellants Messrs. M.S: Kumar and Co. By this agreement the insolvent gave on lease -- to use the language of the agreement -- certain machinery for dyeing, bleaching and printing to the appellants on a monthly tenancy commencing from 1-7-1951, and the lessees agreed to pay Rs. 500 per month as rent. By this agreement the lessor agreed not to demand possession of the property so long as the lessees carried out the conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimati Lilavatibai Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR975
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. By a petition the petitioner challenged a requisition order made on January 27, 1954. Mr. Justice Tendolkar dismissed the Petition and the petitioner has come in appeal.2. The petitioner is the widow of one Dharamdas Chellarm who died on November 24, 1953. The order was pasted on the premises in which the which continued to live after the death of her husband. The order has been challenged on various grounds by Mr. Jethmalani, and the first ground is that the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act have not been complied with. It is urged that service has not been effected as required by Section 13(1)(c) upon the petitioner, she being a person who is affected by the order. Now, in a recent decision a division bench of this Court in Kedar Charandas Yarma v. State of Bombay (1955) O.C.J. Appeal No. 7 of 1955, January 27, 1955 (Unrep.) has taken the view that what is obligatory upon the State is to prove either that service was effected as...
Tag this Judgment!indrajitsinghji Vijaysinghji Vs. Rajendrasinghji Vijaysinghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom45; (1955)57BOMLR962; ILR1955Bom912
Chagla, C.J. 1. A very interesting question as to the rights of an ex-ruler arises in this appeal. The appellant is the third son of the late Maharaja of Rajpipla and the respondent is his eldest son. The appellant filed a petition for letters of administration to the state of the late Maharaja of Rajpipla with the will annexed. Citations were served amongst others upon the respondent.The respondent filed a caveat and filed an affidavit in support of that caveat and under the rules of the High Court, to which we shall presently refer, the petition was converted into a suit and a summons in the suit was served upon the respondent, and when the suit came on for hearing before Desai J., the respondent raised a contention that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a consent of the Central Government by reason of the provisions of Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge upheld that contention and dismissed the suit and the petitioner has come in appeal.2. Now, S...
Tag this Judgment!Khanji Kashari Khanji Vs. Gulam Rasul Chandbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom449; (1955)57BOMLR824
1. This is an appeal arising from execution proceedings. The respondent has obtained a decree for money and is seeking to execute it by appointment of a receiver of what he called the land revenue of certain lands in the former principality of Vajiria. The appellant, who was the former Ruler of the State, contended in the first instance that the decree which had been obtained in this case by the respondent was without jurisdiction.He said that in the second instance the amount of which the respondent prayed that a receiver should be appointed was a pension and was exempt from attachment under the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C. and Section 11, Pensions Act, and in case it could not be attached, no receiver could also be appointed, in respect of it.The learned trial Judge has held that the decree which had been obtained by the respondent was not void for want of jurisdiction. He has indeed accepted that the amount, of which the respondent sought for the appointment of a receiver, w...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Dada Lokhande Vs. Umabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR816
Shah J.1. The lands in suit originally belonged to one Vishwanath Bajirao. Vishwanath was murdered in February 1948 and his property devolved upon his widow Umabai. Vishwanath had served a notice upon the defendant who was his tenant in respect of the suit lands terminating the tenancy as from March 31, 1948, on the ground that the lands were required for personal cultivation. The defendant declined to deliver possession after expiry of the period of notice. Thereupon Umabai filed application No. 2 of 1948 in the Court of the Mamlatdar, Karad, under Section 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, for an order for possession. The application was granted by the Mamlatdar on June 2, 1948, and Umabai enforced the order of the Mamlatdar and obtained possession of the suit lands on June 23, 1948. The defendant preferred appeal No. 49 of 1948 against the decision of the Mamlatdar to the District Deputy Collector, Karad Division, North Satara District, The appeal was heard by the Deputy Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath and Sons Vs. the India United Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR907
Desai, J.1. This is a petition under the Arbitration Act and the relief sought is that the award made by the Umpire may be remitted for reconsideration. Alternatively the petitioners have asked for such other order in relation to the award as may appear just to the Court. There is no express prayer asking for the setting aside of the award but learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that the award is bad for an error of law apparent on the face of it and should, therefore, be set aside. I shall not take a technical view of the matter but will proceed to examine the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioners on the footing that the relief sought is that the award should be set aside.2. By a contract made on May 13/14, 1953, the respondents who are manufacturers of textiles contracted to sell and deliver to the petitioners 300 bales of piecegoods described in the contract. Delivery of the goods was agreed to be 'June/July 1953', After taking delivery of 64 bales the...
Tag this Judgment!Bapubhai Ratanchand Shah and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom21; (1955)57BOMLR892; ILR1955Bom870
Chagla, C.J.1. The two petitioners have been carrying on business for many years at Vakhar Baug at Sangli. Their business is in agricultural produce. It appears that before Sangli was merged in the State of Bombay certain facilities wore given by the State of Sangli for erecting a market for sale and purchase of agricultural produce in this Vakhar Baug area and in view of these facilities the petitioners' case is that merchants invested a large amount in putting up buildings and giving facilities for opening of shops in these buildings so that the business of sale and. purchase of agricultural produce should be carried on.The Government then passed an Act which is the Agricuitural Produce Markets Act, Bombay, Act XXII of 1939, and the Act was made applicable to the Sangli State after its merger. The date on which the Act was made applicable is 20-7-1948, and the result of the application of this Act was that agricultural produce could only be bought and sold under certain conditions an...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamu Ganapati Jadhav Vs. Vishwanath Ganapati Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom410; (1955)57BOMLR807; ILR1955Bom890
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises a short question under the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 18 of 1937. The provisions of this Act have been construed judicially on several occasions and it has been frequently pointed out that in administering the provisions of this Act, Courts have to face some anomalous positions. The difficulty of intorducing reforms in Hindu law by piecemeal legislation has been very eloquently illustrated by the anomalies to which attention has been drawn judicially while construing the provisions of this Act. The point which we have to decide in the present appeal is an additional illustration on the same subject. 2. The point arises in this way. The present appeal is the result of a partition suit between Gan-pati and his three sons Shyamu, Shankar and Vishwa-nath. Ganpati had two wives Saguna and Laxmi. The present suit has been filed by Shyamu, plaintiff 1, Shankar, plaintiff 2, & their mother Saguna plaintiff 3. The father Ganpat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »