Mumbai Court September 1955 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.
Kallappa Shivappa Chaugule Vs. K.V. Bawa Tobbacco Shop
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom272
ORDER1. The plaint filed by the petitioner, in which he claimed to recover Rs. 3,908-11-6 from the defendant, was ordered to be rejected with costs by the learned Civil Judge on 30-6-1953. An application made by the plaintiff for setting aside the said order and for restoring the suit to the file was dismissed on 25-7-1953 by the same learned Judge. It is against this later order that the present revisional application has been filed.2. it appears that the plaintiff was ordered to file an extract of his accounts by the learned Judge on 4-6-1953. The suit has been filed on 18-4-1953. On 16th June the plaintiff purported to produce the relevant extracts, but they were not duly verified. That is why the suit stood adjourned to 30th June. On 30th June the plaintiff was unable to attend the Court owing to floods.The learned Judge did not grant an adjournment to the plaintiff and rejected the plaint because he had not complied with the order issued against him. When the application for resto...
Shiddu Rama Shagale Vs. Basawa Ramayya Swami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR1
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This rivisional application raises a very short point under Section 32 (2) (v) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The petitioner is one of the two creditors of Basawa. It appears that on May 22, 1940, a Thevi Patta was passed in favour of the creditor. Subsequently, on April 20, 1943, a mortgage was executed between the same parties and in respect of the same property. The debtor Basawa applied for the adjustment of the debts due to the petitioner and to Parwati Kom Balayya. In these proceedings the petitioner contended that the Thevi Patta amounts to a lease and a mortgage and his argument was that, though the debt due to him from the debtor; can and should be adjusted under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, it was not open to the Court administering the provisions of the Act to direct that the property belonging to the debtor should be restored to her. This contention was rejected by the learned Judge. An award has been pas...
Shivramsa Benakosa Merwade Vs. Gurunathsa Bhavansa Kabadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR239
Dixit, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit to enforce a mortgage. The facts leading up to the suit may be shortly stated.2. The mortgaged property, which is house property, is more particularly described in para. 2 of the plaint. This property originally belonged to the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and of which one Putosa was an ancestor. He died, in or about the year 1934. The family had an ancestral grocery shop which was in the name of Putosa. In 1934 Benakosa, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, started a cotton dalali business in the name of defendant No. 7 who was then a minor. On January 30, 1936, a simple mortgage was executed in order to secure a sum of Rs. 8,000, the security for that amount being the house property in suit and some seven mortgage deeds which the family held as a mortgagee. The mortgage was executed by Benakosa for himself and as guardian of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, by Devansa for himself and as guardian of his brothers, defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, and...
Nair (P.K.) Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: (1957)ILLJ216Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. The petitioner was a clerk employed in the advertising department of the second respondent company and he was dismissed from service on 2 December 1953 after an inquiry was held with regard to certain charges that were framed against him. The substance of the charges was that the petitioner had issued or authorized the issue of a certain leaflet which was of an extremely scurrilous character and directed mainly against the general manager of the second respondent company. As a dispute was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent company could not give effect to the order of dismissal without the permission of the Tribunal for permission under Section 22 of the Act and that permission was granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner has now come on with (?) this petition challenging the Order of the Tribunal.2. In our opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly correct and the attempt on the part of the petitioner to draw a distinction bet...
Joharimal Amritlal Nemani Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: 19567STC263Tribunal
1. This is a revision application against the order of the Additional Collector of Sales Tax dismissing an application for revision of the order made by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, on the ground that though the applicants were required to make a payment of Rs. 200 within a period of 7 days and to produce the relevant chalan, no such payment was made nor any chalan produced. It has been contended by Shri Joshi for the applicants that in view of Section 22 of the Act of 1946 the Additional Collector of Sales Tax had no right to require the payment of any part of the tax due before admitting the revision application.In Section 21 which relates to appeals there is a proviso which reads, "provided that no appeal against an order of assessment, with or without penalty shall be entertained by the said authority unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax, with penalty, if any, in respect of which the appeal has been preferred". No such provision is to b...
H.A. Shah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: [1956]30ITR618(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee before us is the firm of H. A. Shah & Co. and the assessment years are 1942-43, 1943-44, and 1944-45. It appears that one Hiralal Shah had three sons, Shantilal, Kantilal, and Vasantlal, and the father and the sons constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family. This family was disrupted on 16th April, 1938. At that date Shantilal and Kantilal were majors, but Vasantlal was a minor and he attained majority on 13th October, 1943. On this disruption applications were made by Hiralal under section 25A. of the Income-tax Act, but the Income-tax authorities did not accept the disruption of the joint family and the application of Hiralal was refused. Two appeals in this a connection went before the Income-tax Tribunal. One was the appeal with regard to the refusal of the Income-tax Authorities to recognize the fact of the disruption under section 25A and the other was the assessment of the firm Shantilal Shah & Co. which had come into existence on the disruption ...
Budhamal Hajarimal Vs. Laxmibai Bhr. Baburao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom147
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, setting aside a court sale under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. The plaintiff filed special suit No. 98 of 1948 in the court of the Civil Judge, S.D. at Sholapur to enforce a mortgage and obtained on 26-9-1951 a decree absolute for sale of .the mortgaged property.Thereafter the plaintiff filed darkhast No. 55 of 1952 to recover Rs. 7130/- odd together with costs and running interest from the judgment-debtors. The properties of the judgment-debtors were put up for sale on 7-11-1952 and were purchased by a partner of the mortgagee firm for Rs. 8000/- with leave of the court. On 5-12-1952, defendant 2 against whom alone, it appears the' decree was passed applied for setting aside of the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C.In that application defendant 2 contended that the sale was vitiated on account of material irregularity and fraud in conducting the sale, and that the purchaser being a stranger should ...
Temul Ardeshar Vs. Bejanji Navroji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom159
1. One Navroji died in 1829 leaving him surviving three sons Bejanji, Rustomji and Hormusji. Rustomji died in 1935 and Hormusji died in 1937. Bejanji, the surviving son Of Navroji, then filed suit No. 620 of 1938 for a declaration that certain lands belonged to his father Navroji and that he was entitled to a decree for possession of those lands. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the plea that before filing the suit, Letters of Administration to the estate of Navroji were not obtained by the plaintiff.The plaintiff Bejanji then applied by application No. 15 of 1840 for Letters of Administration and Letters of Administration were granted generally to him to the estate of Navroji. In appeal No. 83 of 1942 of the file of the District Court at Surat the Letters of Administration granted to Bejanji were limited to the prosecution of suit No. 620 of 1938.As however Bejanji had filed the suit without in the first instance obtaining Letters of Administration the suit was di...
Shankar Bandu Vs. Shankar Babaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom165
1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Assistant Judge Dhulia, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff & setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court striking off the name of the 2nd defendant and holding the 2nd defendant not to be a partner.The plaintiff filed suit No. 338 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Dhulia against 14 defendants for a declaration that the partnership between himself and the defendants had been dissolved in or about March 1948 and for an account of the partnership. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed a decree for dissolution of partnership and for accounts.2. It was the plaintiffs case that the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into a partnership to carry on business in cloth in the name and style of 'The Cloth Merchants' Association', and that certain terms were agreed upon and th3 same were recorded in an agreement.The plaintiff claimed in the suit that defendants 1 and 2 were grossly negligent in th...
Pandurang Laxman Mohite Vs. Kaluram Bahiru Bhikule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom254
ORDER1. This revisionat application must be allowed on a point of jurisdiction. It is one of those cases where the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Poona lias not cared to deliver any judgment though the issues framed before him were partly of fact and partly of law, and the only assistance I can get from his judgment is from the reference made by the learned Judge to certain authorities against the findings recorded by him below. the issues. The issues also have not been properly framed because the point of jurisdiction which Mr. K. V. Joshi has raised before me on behalf of the petitioner has not formed the subject matter of the issues though the said point was specifically raised by the petitioner in his written statement. 2. The question of jurisdiction arises in this way. On 4-7-1952, an agreement of sale took place between the parties. The plaintiff is the purchaser and the defendant is the vendor. The property which was the subject matter of the agreement was a hous...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »