Mumbai Court January 1972 Judgments
Ramchandra Vinayak Badamikar Vs. Paygonda Sargonda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom163; (1972)74BOMLR648; ILR1973Bom378; 1972MhLJ907
1. The decree-holder has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Assistant Judge, Sangli, who allowed the appeal of the judgment-debtor, reversed the decree of the Court of the first instance and held that the claim of the decree-holder was barred by limitation. He, therefore, dismissed the darkhast. A decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder, in Civil Suit No. 98 of 1955 of the Sangli Court on 16-4-1956. The decree was for a sum of Rs. 5250/-. The darkhast with which we are concerned has been filed on 12-3-1964 by the heir of the original decree-holder as the manager of the family. he claimed under this darkhast Rs. 7075.98 P. and future interest. He has also stated that he judgment-debtor inspite of his movable and immovable property has been avoiding payment and, therefore, he should be kept in civil jail. The Judgment-debtor has objected on various grounds the darkhast. The principal ground with which we are concerned in this appeal is that the dark...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Gopal Chavan Vs. T.R. Kulkarni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom150; (1972)74BOMLR822; ILR1973Bom700
K.K. Desai, J.1. The petitioner's Appeal No. 47 of 1967 under Section 74 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, was dismissed by the District Judge, Sholapur, being the Tribunal of appeal under the above Act by the judgment and order dated June 28, 1968, which is a common judgment in the matter of Town Planning Appeals Nos. 1 to 113 of 1967. The learned Judge held that in the petitioner's Appeal No. 47 of 1967 as also in about other 10 appeals before him the Municipal Corporation of Sholapur had not been made a party respondent. In five of these appeals, at the time of the first hearing of the appeals, an objection was raised on June 4, 1968, that the Municipal Corporation was necessary party respondent for the purposes of these appeals. In view of that contention, the petitioner applied on June 5, 1968, that the memo of appeal should be allowed to be amended by showing the Municipal Corporation as the 2nd respondent, the first respondent being the Town Planning Offic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›