Skip to content


Rajaram Tukaram Vs. the Central Bank of India Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberO.C.J. Appeal No. 56 of 1926 and Suit No. 393 of 1926
Judge
Reported in(1927)29BOMLR659
AppellantRajaram Tukaram
RespondentThe Central Bank of India Limited
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
appeal dismissed in view of the full bench decision in hatimbhai v. framroz dinshaw supra, p. 498. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article.....amberson marten, c.j.1. having regard to the decision of the full bench, and the final result in hatimbhai v. framroz dinshaw(1), it follows that this appeal no. 56 of 1926 must also be dismissed.2. i would add that although technically this appeal was not actually before the full bench, yet the same leading counsel appeared as in the full bench appeal no. 15 of 1926, it was only not put formally before the full bench because it was an appeal from my brother fawcett who heard the case in the trial court.3. the appeal will be dismissed with costs. liberty to the mortgagee to add the costs to his security.
Judgment:

Amberson Marten, C.J.

1. Having regard to the decision of the Full Bench, and the final result in Hatimbhai v. Framroz Dinshaw(1), it follows that this Appeal No. 56 of 1926 must also be dismissed.

2. I would add that although technically this appeal was not actually before the Full Bench, yet the same leading counsel appeared as in the Full Bench Appeal No. 15 of 1926, It was only not put formally before the Full Bench because it was an appeal from my brother Fawcett who heard the case in the trial Court.

3. The appeal will be dismissed with costs. Liberty to the mortgagee to add the costs to his security.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //