Mumbai Court December 1956 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.
Vithoba Sayanna Bhandari Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1956
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR117
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a dismissal of his suit and it raises a point of law. The point of law raised is whether the declaration referred to in Section 75, Sub-section (1), of the Indian Railways Act, is a declaration to be separately made under that section or whether the statement of account and description of goods as contained in the permit and the statement of the value of the goods as mentioned in the invoice would together be tantamount to a declaration under Section 75, Sub-section (1), when the said permit and invoice are presented by a person delivering the goods to the railway administration for their carriage by railway. The point of law has arisen in this way.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the Union of India claiming an amount of Rs. 6,227-1-6 on account of the non-delivery of a parcel of certain goods which were booked from Coimbatore, a railway station oh the South Indian Railway, to the plaintiff at Sholapur, a railway station on th...
Gulabrao N. Wani Vs. Hemakashiram Gajare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom198; (1957)59BOMLR194; ILR1957Bom373
Palnitkar, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the owner of Survey No. 80 at Bhusaval City. He, on 28th March 1949, entered into an agreement with Opponent No. 1 Hemakashiram Gajare under a registered deed agreeing to sell the suit land to the said Opponent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 2,500; it was agreed that the payment should, be madeevery year at the yearly instalment of Rs. 200 towards the satisfaction of the price of the land with monthly interest of annas four per cent, and that after the whole amount was thus paid, Opponent No. 1 will be given a 'pucca' sale-deed. According to the terms of the said agreement, it was further agreed that Opponent No. 1 was to be in possession of the land. The petitioner complained that Opponent No. 1 paid Rs.. 500 only to the petitioner and that thereafter the said Opponent did not pay the remaining amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The petitioner had, therefore, to file a suit being regular Suit No. 275/1953 in the Bhusaval Civil ...
Devu Subhana and anr. Vs. BadruddIn Hussain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom217; (1957)59BOMLR192; ILR1957Bom371
Palnitkar, J.1. An interesting question of law as to whether one, of two or more tenants is competent to surrender his interest in the tenancy to the extent of his share to the landlord has arisen in this case. The facts alleged are that the lands in question were given to three persons, the two present applicants and one Devu Jinnappa Vithanna as tenants by the respondents Badruddin Hussain Herwadi. The said Devu surrendered his interest in the lands on 30-1-1954. The landlord accordingly made an application, Tenancy Case No. 18 of 1953. 64, before the Mamltadar, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur, for acceptance of the said surrender and delivery of joint possession of the suit property. The present applicants were not made parties to the said proceedings. The Mamlatdar approved the application for surrender and ordered that joint possession of the property be delivered to the landlord along with the two remaining tenants. This order was upheld by the Collector, District Kolhapur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›