Mumbai Court December 1959 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.
Bhimrao Ekanth and anr. Vs. Patilbua Ramkishan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR574
Mudholkar, J.(1) Two questions bearing on the law of pre-emptions have been referred to us by the learned chief Justice on the recommendation of Justice Miabhoy. these questions are:-(1) Has the right of pre-emption become void under Article 13 read with Article 19 of the Constitution of India?and (2) Did the law of pre-emption prevailing in the former Hyderabad state require that the right should subsist on the date of the decree also?In Civil Reference No. 14 of 1959 the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Pardi, has referred one question to the High Court. That question is whether the custom of pre-emption is inconsistent and void under the Indian Constitution of 1950. The learned Chief Justice has referred the question to us.(2) We heard both the matters together and at considerable length. My learned brogher proposes to examine in detail the arguments advanced before us as well as the various decisions, which were cited at the bar. since the main question that is, whether the law of p...
Suratsing Chandanmal Marwadi Vs. Nomanbhai AbdulhusseIn Bohari and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom43; 1961BomCR(Cri)43; (1960)62BOMLR414; ILR1960Bom709
Naik, J. 1. This is an appeal from a final decree passed in a suit on mortgage. The facts underlying this appeal may be briefly set out as follows:-2. The property in suit which is an extensive building comprising two storeys in some parts and underground cellers at City Survey No. 2255 situate at Ahmednagar, originally belonged to one Mir Chiraknddin Syed Kamaluddin Pirajade. Mir Chiraknddin executed a usufructuary mortgage-deed in favour of two persons, Premraj Pannalal and Pannalal Ribakram for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on 8-4-1895. Under the terms of the mortgage bond the mortgagees were to remain in possession of the property and to appropriate the usufruct towards the interest. The rate of interest us stipulated in the deed was 9 per cent per annum. Again on 1st August 1896 Chirakuddin borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,750 and passed a second mortgage bond in respect of the same. Possession of the mortgage was confirmed under the second bond and it was stipulated therein that the mortgagee was to...
Fulchand Hirchand Vs. N.B. Chandurkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Bom145; (1960)62BOMLR214; ILR1960Bom328
Raju, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of execution proceedings, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Nagpur High Court, Mr. Justice B.K. Choudhuri, in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 53 of 1954. That appeal was filed by one Fulchand who was the second mortgagee of the property viz., a house in Dhantoli at Nagpur. Against him an execution application bad been filed by the first mortgagee Mr. Chandurkar, Advocate, Nagpur, who had obtained a preliminary decree for sale of the house on 13-2-1946 and a final decree on 31-1-1949. He had filed three execution applications, one on 17-2-1949, the second on 9-12-1950 and the third on 12-7-1952, and the question for decision before the learned Single Judge of the High Court was whether the third application dated 12-7-1952 was to time. It was contended before him that that application was in time in view of the fact that an earlier application bad been made on 9-12-1950, which was according to Law. This contenti...
Narayan Bansi Vs. Ratanlal Jankilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR236
Tambe, J. 1. Petitioner Narayan and Ratanlal, respondant No. 1 hereto, were the two contesting candidates at the general election of the Amravati Town Muncipal Committee in Vidarbha. They were contesting for a seat from ward muncipal committee in Vidarbha. They were contesting for a seat from ward Muncipal committee in Vidarbha. They were constesting for a seat from ward No. 10 of the said municipality. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also had filed their nomination papers for that seat but had withdrawn their candidature. Poll was taken on May 1, 1959. As a result of the counting that took place on May 2, the petitioner was declared elected by the Supervising Officer. Before the result of this election was notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, in the Official Gazette, as required by the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Municipalities Act, hereinafter called the Act, respondent No. 1 filed an election petition on May 11, 1959, before the District Judge, Amravati, challenging the electi...
Narayan Balaji Patil Vs. Babarao Baliram Bobde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR406
Raju, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for pre-emption. The relevant facts are: On February 1, 1952, defendant No. 3 sold the suit, field No. 81/4 of Malkhed, Taluq Darwha, District Yeotmal, measuring 5 acres and 13 gunthas to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff' Narayan, who is a co-occupant in survey No. 81, filed the suit for pre-emption in respect of the suit field. The trial Court decreed the suit for pre-emption on condition that the plaintiff deposited Rs. 1,600 by way of pre-emption price. The first appellate Court raised the pre-emption price to Rs. 3,600 and against this decision the present second appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff and his contention is that the pre-emption price should not be Rs. 3,600 but should he Rs. 1,600. The respondents have not filed any cross-objections. As they have not filed cross-objections their contention that the suit for pre-emption should have been dismissed on the ground that the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›