Mumbai Court November 1962 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.
Namdeo Digamber Gaikwad and ors. Vs. Vijaykumar Ramchandra Shaha and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom244; (1963)65BOMLR408; ILR1963Bom576; 1963MhLJ603
Patel, J. 1. This is an appeal under Letters Patent against the summary dismissal of the execution appeal of the Judgment-debtors 8 to 10 by Mr. Justice Tarkunde under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:- On February 17, 1923, one Ramchandra Raoji Shah advanced on mortgage a sum of Rs. 2500/- to Dixit family. After this he filed a suit, being suit No. 626 of 1936. As the defendants were agriculturists, accounts were taken under the provisions of Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act, 1879, and eventually a decree dated April 6, 1937 was passed for a sum of Rs. 5000-5-3 and costs of the suit, the costs being a sum of Rs. 497-5-0. The decretal amount was payable by annual instalments of Rs. 800/- each, the first Instalment being payable on 31st March 1938. The decree also provided that if there was default in the payment of any instalment, the judgment-debtors do pay interest on the balance due to the plaintiff at...
Raichand Gulabchand Vs. Dattatraya Shankar Mote and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Bom1; (1963)65BOMLR510; ILR1963Bom509
Patel, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of connected proceedings. It will be sufficient to state the facts in First Appeal No. 40 of 1960 to understand the nature of the litigation, we will call defendants Nos. 1 to 7 'Datars', who were the debtors in the proceedings. Defendant No. 8 was the creditor and defendants Nos. 9 to 13 were also another set of creditors. It appears that Dates were indebted to several persons, amongst whom were defendants Nos. 9 to 13. Defendants Nos. 9 to 13 filed a suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,34,000 and interest from Datars. On the 31st of March 1941 a decree was made in their favour, by which a charge was created on 3 sets of properties belonging to Datars. Two properties were situated at Poona, onein Shukrawar Peth and another in Budhawar Peth. The third property was at Kalyan. This decree, creating the charge was registered on the 17th of April 1941. As ill luck would have it, it was only against the Shukrawar Peth property that the charge was ment...
Mansinh Surajsinh Vs. Jamnadas and Bros. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Bom49; (1963)65BOMLR484; ILR1963Bom623
1. One Raghuvirsinh, Chieftain of Kathi Estate, and opponent No, 7 in these applications filed a suit on 23rd April 1960 for recovery of arrears of royalty from opponents 1 to 6 under a forest contract in respectof Kathi Estate dated 12th December 1955, it appears that this estate was under the management of the Court of Wards during the minority of Raghuvirsinh who was entitled to it by the rule of primogeniture, and while it was under its management, by a contract dated 15th December 1955, the Court of Wards granted to opponents 1 to 6 rights in respect, of the forest produce in the estate for a period of 3 years. The estate was thereafter handed over to Raghuvirsinh on his coming of age on 24th April 1956 and he started managing the same with the help of his mother Hirabai. Shortly thereafter, however, this Hirabai died but before her death she had directed Raghuvirsinh to take the assistance of plaintiff No. 2 in managing the estate, and accordingly, plaintiff No. 2 joined Raghuvir...
Mathur Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1962
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ471Bom
1. The order dated December 8, 1986 passed by the Regional Fund Commissioner, the second respondent herein, levying damages under Section 14-B of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is impugned in the present petition. The order impugned shows that the damages ranging from 5% to 100% of the provident fund dues has been levied against the petitioner. The petitioners have challenged the imposition on the grounds inter alia that there has been an inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice for levying damages has been waived and that the levy of damages over and above 25% is unjustified. In so far as the latter objection is concerned, the Government of India has by an amendment introduced a new para being para 32-A to the Employees' Provident Funds Schemes whereunder rates of damages, for different periods of default, has been laid down. The present case is, therefore, liable to be remanded back to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›