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.
Narayan Nagorao Vs. Amrit Haribhau
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom241; (1957)59BOMLR1004; ILR1958Bom449
1. This is a defendant's appeal from a decree for specific performance of a con-tract of sale of a house passed against him.2. It is not disputed that on 4-4-1949, the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff a document styled as an Isar Chitti whereunder after reciting that he had received Rs. 125/- as earnest money he undertook to sell a house belonging to him to the plaintiff for Rs. 300/-. the agreement also provided that in case the defendant did not execute a sale deed by 25-5-1949, he will be liable to pay back the earnest money to the Plaintiff and also to pay damages to the extent of Rs. 100/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant refused to execute a sale deed and that he therefore served a notice on the defendant before the suit to execute a sale deed. But his reply to the notice was that he had not received the whole of the earnest money, that it was not the intention of the parties that the document should operate as a contract of sale and that is why he refused ...
Shaikh Yakub Ibrahim Sathia Vs. Mahomadali Haiderali Vohra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR870
S.T. Desai, J.1. This second appeal raises a short but interesting question of law. The appellant who was the original defendant No. 1 and his two sons who were defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to the suit entered into a partnership with the respondent in respect of a business of taking forests on contract and the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for dissolution and account of that partnership. It was common ground that the partnership was dissolved on October 17, 1947. The suit was filed on June 11, 1951, and one of the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants was that the suit was barred by limitation. Various issues were raised by the trial Court which held that defendant No. 8 was not a partner in the business and the partnership consisted of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff in, order to save the bar of limitation relied on a letter addressed by defendant No. 1 to him on July 22, 1949. In that letter there was a clear acknowledgment of liability made by defe...
Bhalchandra Krishnarao Diwanji Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR930
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the President of the Municipal Committee, Badnera, for a suitable order or direction, or writ, to quash notification No. 4688-5656-M-XIII, dated October 10, 1956, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated October 12, 1956.2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a tax-payer and a voter of the Municipal Committee, Badnera. He was duly elected as the President of the said Committee on May 12, 1954 (The election of the President under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act is direct). Similarly, the Committee was constituted on May 12, 1954. The Government by notification No. 4638-5656-M-XIII, dated October 10, 1956, issued under Section 53-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (II of 1922), appointed Shri S.S. Chaube, Naib Tahasildar, as the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee for a period of eighteen months from the date of his taking over charge an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›