Mumbai Court April 1957 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.
Sadashiv Shankar Dandige Vs. the Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR67a
Mudholkar, J.1. This order will also govern Civil Application No. 54 of 1957. Both these applications have been made under Section 155 of the Companies Act (No. 1 of 1956) and the relief claimed in these applications is for the issue of a direction to the non-applicants to produce certain records and registers in the Court and require them to effect a transfer of certain shares in the Register of the Members of the Company.2. A preliminary objection is raised by Shri Dhabe, on behalf of the non-applicants to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications.3. Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, deals with the jurisdiction of Courts in the matter of applications made under that Act. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10, the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate shall be the Court having jurisdiction in regard to the matters arising under the Companies Act. T...
Raghunath Hari Deshpande Vs. Kashinath Ramchandra Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom223; (1957)59BOMLR691
1. This is a second appeal arising from execution proceedings of a consent decree passed on 7th of November 1946. By that compromise decree the parties agreed that the respondent was to remain in possession until the period of a lease with regard to Which there was a dispute between the parties in the suit. At the end of this period on the 18th of January 1953 the plaintiff decree-holder was entitled to obtain possession of the land from the defendant. If the defendant did not hand over possession by the 18th of January 1953 the plaintiff was entitled to make an application for execution and obtain possession.2. The defendant failed to hand over possession by the 18th of January 1953 and therefore on the 17th March 1953 the plaintiff appellant made the application for execution from which the present appeal arises for possession of the land. The respondent then met him with a contention that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to give him possession of this land because of the provisio...
Doma Ghusi Patil Vs. Jagana Fagu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom251; (1957)59BOMLR1115; ILR1957Bom856
1. This judgment will also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 320 of 1951.2. Both these appeals arise out of the decision of the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in Civil Appeal No. 10-A of 1950. That appeal in turn arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff Jagan, who is the respondent in this appeal, and the appellant in Second Appeal No. 320 of 1951, claiming from the defendant-appellant Doma Rs. 1,500/-, as his share of the village profit.3. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 51/- only. But in appeal that amount was enhanced by the lower appellate Court to Rs. 737/11/-. This enhancement is challenged by the appellant. The respondent in his cross appeal wants this amount to be further enhanced to Rs. 1,500/-.4. The only question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the Courts below erred in not taking into account the profits made by the plaintiff from certain common lands which he had brought under cultivation while taking ac...
Laxman Gajju Vs. Sitabai Laxman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom14; (1957)59BOMLR567; 1958CriLJ23
ORDER1. This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, and it arises from an application made by the husband. It appears that the petitioner's wife sued him for maintenance, and the Magistrate made an order allowing the wife maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 20 per month and each child at Rs. 15 per month. The wife then made an application for arrears of past maintenance, when there was a compromise between the parties, because the parties agreed that they would resume cohabita-tion. and that application for arrears was disposed of. Subsequently it appears that the wife and husband cohabited for some time, but then they again separated, and the wife made an application again for arrears of past maintenance from the date of the original application, namely, the 14th of April 1953. The husband then raised a contention that he andthe wife had resumed cohabitation, and consequently the order had come to an end. The order which the Magistrate pa...
Vithal Krishna Shanbhag Vs. Sogmal Nathmal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom92; (1957)59BOMLR1043; ILR1958Bom329
Tendolkar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order as well as an ex partc decree of the City Civil Court. The suit was filed as a summary suit on a Promissory note for Rs. 3000/- ; and in this suit the defendant made an application under Section 30 of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946. This application was dismissed by Judge K. M. Vakil on the 18th of February, 1955, as he held that the defendant was not entitled to take out a notice under Section 30 of the Act in a summary suit without obtaiuing leave to defend the suit. Against this order an appeal was admitted to this Court. In the meantime a summons for judgment was taken out and conditional leave to defend was granted; but as the defendant was unable to comply with the condition for deposit of money an ex parte decree has been passed against him. An appeal has now been filed against this ex parte decree as well. Both the appeals are before us for hearing and final disposal.2. The only point, which is a neat question of law, that rea...
Bai Shakri Vs. Bapusinghji Takhatsinhji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom30; (1957)59BOMLR655; ILR1957Bom786
1. This Second Appeal raises some interesting questions of law and one of them is whether a decree passed in a suit against a Ruling Chief without obtaining the previous consent of the Central Government under Section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code can operate as res judicata in the subsequent execution proceedings. The other question, really another facet of the same contention, is whether the Court to which a decree is transferred for execution has, under Order 21, Rule 7 of the Code, the power to question the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree. The matter has been ably argued before me by Mr. Patwa, who appears for the appellant.2. The appellant obtained a decree on a promissory note in a suit filed by him against the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge at Himatnagar. A written statement was filed by the respondent, the Chief of Vasna State, and in substance one of the contentions raised by him was that he was a Ruling Chief when the decree was passed and was, ...
The State Vs. Kapurchand Adebhan Oswal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom311; (1957)59BOMLR734; 1958CriLJ1009; ILR1958Bom565
Vyas, J. 1. These are acquittal appeals by the State and they raise a point of law. The point of law raised is whether in a case where a person is prosecuted under Section 67 of the Bombay Prohibition Act for being found in possession of any spirit which has been altered or attempted to be altered, it shall be presumed under Section 103 of the Act, without further evidence until the contrary is proved, that the possession is in contravention of Section 21 of the Act, i.e. that the person in possession has knowledge or has reason to believe that the alteration or attempt at alteration has been made with the intention that such spirit may be used for human consumption and that, therefore, he has committed an offence under Section 67. The learned Judge and Magistrate has held that such a presumption is enjoined by Sub-section (2) of Section 103,but that the presumption is a rebuttable one and has been rebutted in this case by the proved circumstances of the cases. The learned Magistrate t...
A.J. Butler Vs. Mohanlal and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom367; (1958)60BOMLR194; 1958CriLJ1157; ILR1957Bom774
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Gohilwad Division, requesting us to quash the order, dated 13-10-56, made by the learned judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhavnagar. The impugned order came to be made by the learned Magistrate in the following circumstances. Shri Butler, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs (Preventive Branch), Baroda, wrote a letter, dated 6-9-56, to the aforesaid Magistrate requesting for search warrants to be issued under Section 172, Sea Customs Act, 1878, as amended by Section 13 of the Sea Customs (Amendment) Act, 1955. The search warrants were intended to be directed against six shop premises belonging to the six opponents. The seventh warrant was intended for searching the Sate Deposit Vault, in the State Bank of Saurashtra, belonging to opponent No. 1. The learned Magistrate acted on the aforesaid letter and issued the warrants as prayed for. These warrants were executed on the same day, and, in the course ...
Bajirao Ganpati and ors. Vs. Daulatrao Malhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom236; (1957)59BOMLR1007; ILR1957Bom769
1. The only point in this appeal is whether the transaction in question is a sale or merely an agreement for sale.2. The plaintiffs had applied to the Debt Relief Court for settlement of their debts and eventually that Court framed a scheme whereunder the debt was payable to one Waman Gopal who was their only creditor by instalments. The date on which the scheme was prepared was 13-6-1941 and the last instalment was made payable thereunder on 15-3-1949. On 28-4-1949, the plaintiffs executed a document exhibit D-9 styled as 'Sauda Chitti' whereunder they agreed to sell field S.No. 49/1 of mauza Chincholi, taluq Mehekar, district Buldana to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 4500/- in consideration of the defendant satisfying the debt due to Waman Gopal. In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiffs put the defendant in possession of the property, it is stated that the defendant has been paying instalments to Waman Gopal regularly.3. On 1-4-1950, the plaintiffs instituted the suit out of wh...
Pralhad Sheonarayan Chokhani Vs. Damodhar Rankaran Vaishnao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom79; (1957)59BOMLR1178; ILR1958Bom970
Tambe, J.1. This appeal of the plaintiff is directed against the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court.2. The dispute now relates to the immovable property left by one Mahadeo as described in Schedules A to C of the plaint. No dispute was raised before us in respect of the movable property shown in Sch. D of the plaint. The contest chiefly lies between the plaintiff, the son of the deceased Mahadeo's daughter Anchi on the one hand, who claims to be the next reversioner on the death of all the daughters of Mahadeo, and the second defendant Jainarayan on the other, who claims the property under the oral will of Mahadeo and also as his adopted son. The claim of Jainarayan is supported by the 14th defendant Kukhminibai who is the daughter of Mahadeo's deceased daughter Narbada, and also by the first defendant Damodhar, who is the son of Mahadeo's another deceased daughter Saraswati. Defendants Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are only the tenants of the portion of the suit properties. They pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »