Mumbai Court November 1957 Judgments
Sundrabai Dalichand Vs. Moreshwar Mahadeo Gokhale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom178; (1958)60BOMLR482; ILR1958Bom765
1. This is an appeal from the order dated 6-12-1956, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ialgaon, below application Exhibit 27 in Special Darkhast No. 39 of 1954, by which the learned Judge rejected the application made by the judgment-debtor No. 6, for setting aside a sale. The application was made under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. It is common ground that, in execution of the decree in Darkhast No. 39 of 1954, a property belonging to the appellant has been sold, and the sale was confirmed on 18-5-1955. It is also common ground that respondent NO. 2 is the auction purchaser. The aforesaid application was made by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the sale. The main ground, on which the application was made, was that a notice under Order 21, Rule 66, Sub-rule (2) of the Civil Procedure Code had not been served upon the appellant. The facts are that, after the order for sale was made under Order 21, ...
Tag this Judgment!Berar Provincial Patels and Patwaris Association and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom300; (1958)60BOMLR596; ILR1958Bom645
S.P. Kotwal, J. 1. This petition raises important questions as to the applicability and scope of Section 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (Act II of 1955), and as to its constitutional validity.2. The facts upon which the petition is based are simple. The first petitioner is an association known as the ''Berar Provincial Patels and Patwaris Association, of which the petitioner Nagorao son of Haribhau Gaopande is the authorised representative. Nagorao also was at the material time the malik watan-dar patwari of several villages in Akola Taluq and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were the malik watan-dar patels of several villages in Akola faluq, district Akola and in Malkapur taluq of Buldhana district respectively. The petitioners were appointed to their respective offices under the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900. To the provisions of this law and the circumstances in which it came to be passed we shall presently advert.3. After the abolition of malguzaris and other p...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullamiyan Bavamiyan Vs. the Bombay State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR794
Vyas, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and it is filed by four petitioners. The relief, which the petitioners have claimed in this application, is that the Order No. RD/IV/Remand-112 dated October 15, 1956, passed by the Government of the State of Saurashtra in the Revenue Department, be quashed and an appropriate writ be issued to restrain the Goverment and the Taluka Mamlatdar, Dhoraji, from enforcing the above-mentioned order.2. The petitioners contend that they are Barkhalidars within the meaning of Clause (1) of Section 2 of the Barkhali Abolition Act and are entitled to possession of land for their personal cultivation under Section 6 of the Act. They next contend that they had applied in the prescribed form for the allotment of land for personal cultivation. This application was made to the Special Mamlatdar. The Special Mamlatdar by an order made on April 12, 1952, allotted land to the petitioners under Section 8 of the Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Rangarao and anr. Vs. Gopal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom287; (1958)60BOMLR675; ILR1959Bom210
1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the dismissal of their suit for possession of certain immovable property.2. It is not disputed before me that eh property in suit was the self-acquired property of one Bhagwan who died on 29-10-1943 leaving behind him a widow Smt. Jankibai and a married daughter Smt. Saraswatibai. It is also not disputed that on 19-9-1945 Jankibai took the plaintiff No. 1 in adoption.3. The Property in suit is admittedly in the possession of the defendant No. 1 Gopal in his capacity as wahiwatdar of the Bhagwan Sansthan at Makrampur. His contention is that the aforesaid property was bequeathed to the Saunsthan by Bhagwan under a will executed by him on 6-5-1943. He therefore denied the plaintiffs' right to the possession of the property in suit.4. Teh execution and due attestation of the will as well as the testamentary capacity of the testator Bhagwan are all denied by the plaintiffs. In addition, it is contended (a) that the will even if proved to have been...
Tag this Judgment!Thakorelal Chaturbhuj Dalal and ors. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom511; (1958)60BOMLR580; ILR1958Bom1025
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Special Civil Suit NO. 1 of 1952 dismissing the plaintiffs's suit for damages against the State of Bombay. The plaintiffs claimed damages on the plea that the Rationing Officer Broach, passed an order on 17-11-1948 freezing and requisitioning certain stock of wheat in the plaintiffs' custody and the District Magistrate passed an order dated 18-1-1949, that the stock of wheat be sold at the price (fixed by the order) which was below the market value of wheat, and that those orders were illegal and ultra vires. The learned trial Judge held that the orders were ultra vires the District Magistrate but in his view the plaintiffs had no cause of action because the stocks of wheat and in respect of which the plaintiffs claimed damages did not belong to them.2. The facts which give rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and one Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal were carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Parwatibai Vasudeo Abhyankar Vs. Shridhar Nagesh Kapre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1175
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and it arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge at Satara in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1950 which in its turn arose out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Wai, in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1948. The learned Civil Judge, by the decree passed by him on January 3, 1950, directed that the defendants do deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. As regards the future mesne profits, the decree directed that those be determined under the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12(c), of the Civil Procedure Code. From the said decree passed by the trial Court, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 went in appeal before the District Court, North Satara, at Satara, and that was appeal No. 67 of 1950. The learned Assistant Judge, who heard that, appeal, confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. From that decree of dismissal of appeal, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 h...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Keshavlal Amrutlal Ozha and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom243; (1958)60BOMLR551; 1958CriLJ756; ILR1959Bom358
ORDER1. This case has been reported under Section 438 of the Criminal P.C., by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chanda.2. The relevant facts are briefly these: On 18-10-1955, there was a fatal accident in the Mahakali Coal Mines at Chanda. The non-applicant No. 1 Keshaylal is the managing director of these mines while the non-applicant No. 2, Walker, is the manager thereof. Notices of the accident were given immediately by telegrams to the Chief Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad and the Regional Inspector of Mines, Chhindwara. Similarly, notices of the accident under Section 23(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, were also given immediately.3. Early In May 1956, the Regional Inspector of Mines directed Bhankaran (P.W. 1), an Inspector of Mines, to inquire into the accident. He accordingly inquired into the matter and during the course of the inquiry he learnt for the first time that the non-applicants had committed breaches of regulations 96 and 146 and had thereby committed an offence punishable under...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bombay Vs. Keshavlal Amrutlal Ozha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ698Bom
1. This case has been reported under S. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chanda. 2. The relevant facts are briefly these : On 18 October 1955, there was a fatal accident in the Mahakali Coal Mines at Chanda. The non-applicant No. 1 Keshavlal is the managing director of these mines while the non-applicant No. 2 Walker, is the manager thereof. Notices of the accident were given immediately by telegrams to the Chief Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, and the Regional Inspector of Mines, Chhindwara. Similarly, notices of the accident under S. 23(1) of the Mines Act 1952, were also given immediately. Early in May 1956, the Regional Inspector of Mines directed Shankaran (P.W. 1), an Inspector of mines, to inquire into the accident. He accordingly inquired into the matter and during the course of the inquiry he learnt of the first time that the non-applicants had committed breaches of regulations 96 and 146 and had thereby committed an offence punishable under S....
Tag this Judgment!Hirabai Channappa Vs. Ganesh Datatraya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom172; (1958)60BOMLR477; ILR1958Bom756
1. This is a second appeal from the appellate decree passed by the learned District Judge. South Satara, at Sangli, in Appeal No. 315 of 1953. 2. This second appeal raises a very short question about the right of the plaintiff-mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property. The contention of the mortgagee is that the right of redemption of the mortgagor has been extinguished. The two Courts below have taken different views on this subject. The trial Court has held that the right of redemption of the mortgagor was not lost, and the first appellate Court has taken the view that the right was so lost. 3. The suit properties consist of a house and two lands. It is common ground that these properties originally belonged to one Channappa Jangam. He died in or about 1910 leaving behind him his widow Hirabai, the present plaintiff, and a widowed daughter named Bhagirathi. It is also common ground that Hirabai mortgaged the suit properties on or about 12-6-1914 in favour of one Dattoba. Defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!Middle East Trading Co. Vs. the New National Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR509
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of Notice of Motion taken out by the defendants for stay of plaintiffs' suit under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940.(2) By two contracts dated 23rd June 1955 and 30th June 1955 defendants agreed to sell and plaintiffs agreed to purchase printed mercerised voil 41800 yards, July 1955 delivery. These contracts were provisional and were to be confirmed only on the production by the plaintiffs of the necessary purchase export licences. The licences were produced and the provisional contracts were confirmed by the parties on 1st July 1955.(3) One of the terms of the contract was the defendants were to send samples of the goods in the first instance and that delivery of the goods was to be taken by plaintiffs only after they approved of the samples. It appears some time before 21st July 1955 samples of the goods were sent to plaintiffs.But plaintiffs did not approve of them and wrote to the defendants on 21st July 1955 asking them to prepare new samples accord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »